R v MM

In the matter of R v MM, the respondent, who had previously been convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse, appealed against his conviction and sentence. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, contending it was too lenient. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether admissions made by the respondent to a Probation and Parole officer were improperly obtained, and if evidence of the respondent's collection and viewing of child pornography, and his fantasies about sexual acts with children, were inadmissible tendency evidence. The Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained by a Probation and Parole officer, and the exceptions to the general prohibition against tendency evidence.

The Court found that the admissions made to the Probation and Parole officer were not improperly obtained as they were not the result of any coercion, deception or improper influence. The Court held that the officer's role was to gather information to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders and that the admissions were made voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court held that the evidence of the respondent's collection and viewing of child pornography, and his fantasies about sexual acts with children, was not inadmissible tendency evidence. The Court found that this evidence was relevant to the respondent's propensity to commit the offences for which he was charged, and was therefore admissible under the exceptions to the general prohibition against tendency evidence. The Court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting this evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal against the sentence, finding it to be manifestly inadequate. The Court ordered that the respondent be re-sentenced, with directions to consider the appropriate term of imprisonment. The Court did not alter the respondent's convictions.