In the court, Katigbak confessed that he possessed child pornography but only for educational purpose. He said he was going to create an artistic exhibit with it to create awareness of the consequences of child pornography. Although the trial judge exonerated Katigbak, the Ontario Court of Appeal gave a verdict against the man.
The Supreme Court of Canada said: “In our view, the trial judge made errors of law regarding both versions of s. 163.1(6). First, she erred by finding that the pornographic material fell within the scope of the pre-2005 artistic merit defence on the ground that Mr. Katigbak possessed the material for an artistic purpose, notwithstanding the fact that the material itself had no artistic merit and was not created for one of the enumerated purposes.”
According to the existing version of s. 163.1(6) states: “No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.”
Article viewed on: Oye! Times at www.oyetimes.com