Mr. Sharp was caught with child pornography and the crown also, charged with distrusting of child pornography, underthe Criminal Code s.163.1(4).
Also, he was chargedwith one countof possession for the purposes of distribution or sale under s. 163.1(3)Criminal Code of Child pornography. Mr. Sharpe, challenge the Courts, as hefelt that the crown and government has infringeds.
2(b) Under the Canadian Charter Right And Freedom on his right. Also, Mr.Sharpefelt it was justified, under 1(a) of the charter. Mr.
Sharpe, he said theCriminal Code s.163.1(4) under s.
7 of the Charter, by arguing that he felt exposureto potential imprisonment terms as a result, of an excessively sweeping law, iscontrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Mr.Sharpe said, he has theright to freedom of expression, that the pornography he had, an art formexpression. That under the Criminal code Of Canada S.163.1(4).
Mr. Sharpe didnot 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