Child pornography trial continues

The following story may contain details which are disturbing to some readers.

A local mother admitted to a city police detective that she had taken photographs of her young daughter for a man she met online, Superior Court Justice Annalisa Rasaiah heard Tuesday.

"She said she was ashamed of what had happened and she had put it behind her," Sgt. Jack Rice testified on the second day of the woman's trial on child pornography charges.

The accused provided that information on Feb. 25, 2019, when he and other officers executed a search warrant at her residence, the 35-year member of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service said.

"She blamed her daughter for what had occurred, that her daughter didn't know boundaries," said Rice, who is attached to the service's technological crime unit and is in charge of child exploitation investigations.

The woman agreed to accompany him to the police station for a videotaped interview, he told prosecutor Karen Pritchard.

On Monday, the defendant pleaded not guilty to making child pornography, possession of child pornography for the purpose of distributing/selling It and telecomunicating with someone to commit a sexual offence with someone under the age of 18.

A publication ban prohibits reporting any information that may identify the complainant.

The offences are alleged to have occurred between Jan. 1, 2015 and Dec.31, 2017, when her daughter was a pre-teen.

Pritchard played the video for the court as part of a voir dire - a trial within a trial - to determine if the statement was made voluntarily.

The woman told Rice she met "Ed," who "apparently was some rich dude," on a dating site. 

"He didn't seem weird in the beginning" but then "it changed when he tried  to involve my daughter," she said.

Ed had "me convinced it was normal," that who could better teach your child about sex.

He wanted me to teach her different things and said other mothers did this." I love my kids and I didn't want to do anything to hurt her."

She told Rice she stopped communicating with him "when he wanted to bring my son into it."

The woman also said she takes full responsibility for what happened.

"I don't know what I was thinking and it was a mistake."

Rice will continue his testimony today.

This was the second voir dire in the trial.

The first involved a video statement, the then 14-year-old complainant gave a Children's Aid Society of Algoma child protection worker in 2019.

The teen's allegations outlined incidents she said occurred when she was 11 years old.

On Tuesday morning, Pritchard and defence lawyer Jessica Belisle made their arguments on the admissibility of this evidence.

The Crown is seeking admission of the complainant's video under a child witness provision in the Criminal Code.

If a witness, under the age of 18, gives a taped video statement within a reasonable time after the offence is alleged to have occurred, it is admissible evidence if the complainant adopts the contents while testifying at court proceedings against an accused.

Pritchard said the question in this case is whether the videotape was made within a reasonable time of the alleged offences.

It is important that the 2019 statement the girl gave to the worker was from an open-ended interview without leading questions, the assistant Crown attorney told the court.

Although time has passed since the interview, it is apparent from the complainant's testimony at the trial that she has a "significant recollection of the events" she provided during the statement and gave details of locations.

The complainant was a young child when the offences are alleged to have occurred and there is a reasonable lapse of time to when she made the disclosure, Pritchard argued. 

In her evidence, the complainant indicated she felt unable to disclose because she was close to her mother and had a strong trust In their relationship, the prosecutor said.

Belisle countered that the Crown has not met its burden of proof.

The complainant was 11 at the time of the allegation and "waits three plus years before she gives the statement." 

The disclosure came after a series of events, when the girl didn't want to live at home, the defence said.

The complainant had significant opportunities prior to the disclosure to talk to the CAS and other agencies, Belisle said, but did this when she was faced with going back to her mother's rather than living with her boyfriend.

"She uses that as leverage," the lawyer told the court, adding "there is no rational reason for the delay in the disclosure."

Belisle argued the worker's questions in the video were leading and produced a statement that  is "tainted and prejudicial."