The Alberta Court of Appeal has increased the sentence of a man convicted of child pornography and abuse. The court found that the trial judge made an error by rejecting a joint sentencing proposal from both the defense and the Crown. The judge also declined to view the graphic images created by the accused, referred to as R.P.A.

R.P.A. began collecting child pornography in 2014 and sexually abused his daughter, identified as K.S. in court documents, from 2016 to 2022. He created child pornography that mirrored some of the abuse depicted in his collection. He was arrested in 2022 and pleaded guilty to charges of sexual interference, making child pornography, and possessing child pornography on the first day of his trial in 2024.

The collection included thousands of images and videos, with 288 featuring his daughter, who was four years old when the abuse started. During sentencing hearings, both the Crown and defense recommended an 18-year prison term. However, the trial judge, Jordan Stuffco, expressed concern that similar cases had received lower sentences.

The Crown urged the judge to view the child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to understand the severity of the offenses. However, Judge Stuffco declined, stating, "Given the explicit descriptions of the CSAM, I did not need to view the images. It was clear the offender committed grave, disturbing offenses. Viewing the images would objectively add nothing to what the offender admitted."

The judge concluded that sentences longer than 14 years were reserved for more egregious crimes. He described the joint submission as "unhinged" and stated it reflected a breakdown in the justice system. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that Judge Stuffco incorrectly opted for a sentence of 14 years minus 198 days served.

The Court of Appeal also criticized the judge for not admitting and viewing the images and videos of child abuse that R.P.A. had created. The court noted, "In the case of possession or making of child pornography, the images are the crime, so they are by definition relevant."

The justices observed that some judges across Canada are hesitant to view child sexual abuse material, fearing it may prejudice their judgment. They argue that written descriptions suffice and that viewing the material could lead to revictimization of those depicted. However, other judges believe that viewing the material is essential to fully understand the crime's nature.

While the Court of Appeal did not mandate that judges must always view such images, it acknowledged that there are circumstances where viewing is necessary. The court stated, "In this circumstance, there may be no words that adequately convey the gravity of the offenses and the moral culpability of the offender."

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that Judge Stuffco should have viewed the image submissions to grasp the nature and gravity of the offenses fully. The justices emphasized the importance of understanding the full context of the crimes committed.