User:Thulianpink111/sandbox

Regina v. Spencer
Regina v. Spencer is a criminal case taking place in Saskatchewan, Canada. This case looked at the issue of privacy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically s. 8, which states “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. This case went to the Supreme Court of Canada on June 13th, 2014. The docket number is 34644.

The Case
Spencer was accused of downloading child pornography using a file sharing program that is used to connect users. The police discovered his shared folder and obtained the internet protocol (IP) address, though they were unable determine the owner of the folder. The police wrote to Shaw Communications, the company who assigned the folder to request information on the owner. This request was made based on s. 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which states "the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law and Shaw Communications obeyed . Shaw Communications identified Spencer’s sister as the owner. The police used this information to get a warrant to search Spencer’s sister’s house and discovered the laptop. Spencer was charged with possession of child pornography and making child pornography available , as stated in section 163(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code

Court
Based on the evidence, the judge decided that Spencer was guilty of possession of child pornography. The judge also agreed that Spencer did not intend to share his file with others using the program. This decision was appealed by both Spencer and the Crown. Spencer believed that the folder containing child pornography should be excluded since the police obtained the information through a letter, which violated his s. 8 rights from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Spencer argued that the judge was wrong in deciding that there was no expectation of privacy in his situation, and that cases such as R. v. Trapp were interpreted incorrectly. The issue in this case is whether or not Spencer had a right to privacy to the information that was given to the police, even though it belonged to his sister. Spencer had a subjective expectation of privacy to the information that was given, but the concern is, was this expectation objectively reasonable in this situation. The court of Appeal decided that the charge possession of child pornography should stay, but that a new trial should be ordered for the making child pornography available. They did not allow the acquittal on this charge. This decision was appealed by Spencer. .

Supreme Court of Canada
This case was heard by 8 judges, including the honorable Beverly McLachlin, where it was decided that the appeal from the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan will be dismissed. This case was concerned with informational privacy. This usually involves secrecy and confidentiality, and control over the access and use of information. . Due to new information technology, there has been increasing issues with privacy, according to extensive research that has been done. For instance, McRobb and Rogerson say that internet users are worried about how information obtained by companies will be used, whether that information is given willingly or without informed consent.