Mr. Sharp was caught with child pornography and the crown also, charged with distrusting of child pornography, underthe Criminal Code of Canada s.163.1(4). Also, he was charged with one count of possession for the purposes ofdistribution or sale under s.
163.1(3) Criminal Code of Child pornography. Mr.Sharpe, challenge the Courts, as he felt that thecrown and government has infringed s. 2(b) Under the Canadian Charter Right AndFreedom. Also, Mr.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Sharpe felt it was justified, under 1(a) of the charter. Mr.Sharpe,he said the Criminal Code of Canada s.163.1(4) under s. 7 of the Charter, byarguing that he felt exposure to potential imprisonment terms as a result, ofan excessively sweeping law, is contrary to the principles of fundamentaljustice. Mr.
Sharpe said, he has the right to freedom of expression, that the pornographyhe had, an art form expression. That under the Criminal code Of CanadaS.163.1(4). Mr. Sharpe did not hurt anyone, in reality, to make the pictures,as this is just an art form, of which he used for personal. Which the government, has broken theCharter Right And Freedom 2(b).
That protect anyone, that want to expressthemselves without being judge and judgment, against them. Also, Mr. Sharpesaid that the law has broken the law, under the charter (7), security andliberty of anyone that are Canadian. Asa result, the government, had broken his right and should be tossed out thecourt.Remedy The ofBritish Columbia of Appeal, said that the court has confronted with a law thatis substantially constitutional and peripherally problematic, the Court mayconsider a number of alternatives.
Until the Government of Canada, can findanother way to target evil people. Another alternative way is, might be to holdthat the law as it only applies to the case at bar is valid, declining to findit unconstitutional on the basis of a hypothetical scenario that has not yetarisen. In, the United State the law had court had
