remaining on the Internet, particularly with respect to S, whose
name was attached to some of the images. It was, the defence
admitted, a unique and aggravated set of facts.
 The defence submitted that the “range” for the offences
was eight to 15 years. Defence counsel acknowledged that it was
“one of the most serious offences of making and distributing child
pornography and, in fact, this person is the perpetrator of the
sexual violence in the creation of those images. So that makes
this a very worst example of the offence.” She suggested, however, a sentence of eight to ten years.
 Defence counsel acknowledged the appellant lacked
remorse, and suggested that he was “born without an empathy
gene”. Counsel said that the appellant simply did not understand
the harm he had caused the children.
Reasons of the sentencing judge
 The sentencing judge described the appellant’s offences as
“one of the worst, if not the worst, examples” of these offences.
The images and films and the appellant’s posts on the Internet
sites spoke for themselves and demonstrated his determination to
be recognized and appreciated as a producer of “the most vile of
child pornography”. He found that the appellant created and
distributed the material “without concern for the pain and suffering he was inflicting upon his helpless and vulnerable victims in
his pursuit of recognition and appreciation from his like-minded
 The victim impact statements, in the judge’s view, spoke
“to the emotional trauma suffered by these child victims with its
ongoing and lasting effects, as well as the physical, emotional and
life-altering impact the accused’s conduct has wrought upon some
of the members of the victims’ families”.
 The sentencing judge noted:
Even in the absence of impact statements the Court is entitled to consider the
well-known consequences of child sexual abuse upon the victims, including
psychological harm, emotional trauma, and the inability as an adult for the victim to form a loving and caring relationship with another adult. The Court can
also consider, as in this case, that the posting of the child pornography on the
internet will forever permit these children, and in particular, S, to be further
victimized and they will be further traumatized by the knowledge that these
images and movies could surface in their personal lives at any time.
 He referred to the pre-sentence report but pointed as well to
the opinion of the investigating officer who described the
accused as “arrogant, self-centred and lacking remorse”. He noted
that the author of the pre-sentence report considered that the
appellant posed a high risk to re-offend.