The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of transmitting sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating an enumerated sexual offence.
The court held that the trial judge misapplied the mens rea requirement by treating proof of identity in the masturbation video as necessary and by treating an intention to 'flirt' as inconsistent with an intention to facilitate sexual offences.
In context, the accepted facts established grooming conduct aimed at reducing the child's inhibitions and making sexual offending easier or more probable.
The appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and a conviction was entered.
