What happens when a law meant to protect society’s most vulnerable ends up protecting the predators instead?
Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele tackle one of the most emotionally charged Supreme Court decisions in recent memory: the striking down of mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography possession.
With characteristic clarity and sharp legal insight, the hosts unpack the shocking facts of the Seville and Naud case, the controversial use of hypotheticals by the court, and how this ruling could shift Canadian politics and legislation.
Along the way, they explore the tension between sentencing discretion and public outrage, the use and misuse of the notwithstanding clause, and what this decision reveals about deeper flaws in the criminal code.
Listen For
00:00 Why did the Supreme Court of Canada strike down mandatory minimums for child porn cases?
5:48 What were the shocking facts of the Ville and Naud cases?
12:14 How did a hypothetical involving teens change the outcome of a child porn sentencing case?
20:02 Is the law flawed, or is judicial discretion the real issue?
25:22 Could this ruling spark a political storm over the notwithstanding clause?
Watch For
Leave a rating/review for this podcast with one click
Contact Us
Gardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email
