Pornography shown to child

A man who lives in a small Cariboo community was convicted Wednesday of showing pornography to a nine-year-old girl in West Kelowna, despite claiming he did it as “sexual education.”

The 64-year-old man faced trial earlier this year on charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and making sexually explicit material available to a child for the commission of an offence.

Castanet is not naming the accused, to protect the identity of the victim, which is covered under a publication ban. Castanet will refer to the accused as AP and the victim as FV. These are not their real initials.

During trial, the Crown said the allegations occurred between 2013 and 2018 when FV was between seven and 13. When she was 16, FV told her parents that AP – the father of the woman FV's father was in a relationship with – had abused her and showed her pornography. She also said he showed her videos of him and his wife having sex and showed her sexually explicit online video games.

FV said AP told her she would be the smartest kid in her sex ed classes at school and that the videos would be “our secret.”

AP admitted to showing FV pornography, but claimed he had done so to teach her about safe sex, as he was concerned that she was going to get pregnant. FV was nine or 10 years old when he showed her the videos.

But Wednesday, Judge Dave Ruse wholly rejected AP's reasoning.

Judge not buying it

“His version of events makes little to no sense... before embarking on the sex education program, [AP] did not advise [FV's father] of his intention to provide sex education to his daughter, nor did [AP] advise [AP's daughter] of what he intended to do,” Judge Ruse said.

“[AP] did not enquire with [FV] about what she had learned at school about sexual related issues, nor did [AP] discuss sex education with [FV] in any way before he began showing her the videos.”

Judge Ruse noted the videos were not educational videos from a public health authority, but from the the adult pornographic site Pornhub.

“[AP] agreed on cross-examination that the pornography sites and the sex games did not teach [FV] about safe sex or how to avoid getting pregnant,” Judge Ruse said. “At no time did [AP] ever discuss with [FV] how to avoid getting pregnant, avoid sexually transmitted diseases or safe sexual practices.

“In my view, the purpose for which [AP] showed [FV] sexually explicit material was to facilitate an offence... to familiarize and normalize this child to what would otherwise be an adult activity, thereby making it easier for [FV] to accept engaging in this type of sexual activity with [AP].”

As a result, Judge Ruse convicted AP of making sexually explicit material available to a child for the commission of an offence. But despite this, he acquitted AP of the sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching charges.

Left with reasonable doubt

At trial, FV described two instances in which AP rubbed his groin against her while they were roughhousing. In one instance, she said AP told her he wanted to have sex with her, but he couldn't because “it was bad between a grown man and a kid.”

Another time, FV said AP told her to touch his penis in a bathroom, which she did, before running away.

But Wednesday, Judge Dave Ruse said he was left with a reasonable doubt following FV's testimony. While he accepted that it was normal for FV to have gaps or inconsistencies in her memory of events that happened several years prior, he noted that FV acknowledged that her memory of some events changed over time.

Judge Ruse said there were some differences in FV's testimony in court compared to what she told police when she first reported the allegations to police, and she appeared to exaggerate and overemphasize some parts of her testimony.

Following his conviction on the single charge, AP is expected to be sentenced early next year. The charge carries a minimum sentence of six months in jail. AP remains out of custody at this time.