The accused was tried on two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography arising from files found on multiple computer devices seized during execution of a search warrant.
The court applied the law distinguishing constructive possession from mere viewing, and held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed a substantial collection of child pornography on the date of arrest and accessed child pornography over the charged period, based on exclusive control of the devices, plain-sight files, cached images, and extensive search history.
The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific lumfile downloads alleged in the earlier count because none of those files were found on the seized devices.
Verdicts of guilty were entered on counts two and three, and not guilty on count one.
