Posted on 01/29/2005 12:25:16 PM PST by mastercylinder
VANCOUVER (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that masturbating at home is not an offence, even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours.
The case centred on whether a private space - Daryl Clark's living room - became public because others could view it. The high court said No in a unanimous ruling Thursday. "The living room of his private home was not a place 'to which the public (had) access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,' " Justice Morris Fish wrote, quoting the Criminal Code.
"I do not believe it (access) contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within."
On Oct. 28, 2000, Clark's neighbours across his backyard in Nanaimo, B.C., noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room.
The woman had been watching television with her two young daughters in their family room, a room lit only by a television screen and light from the adjoining kitchen.
The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.
The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment.
The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."
The neighbours, who are identified only as Mr. and Mrs. S, called police.
The officer was able to see Clark from his belly up from the neighbour's bedroom and from the neck or shoulders up from the street level.
But Clark was charged after the police officer shone his flashlight in Clark's window at close range.
The trial judge concluded he had "converted" his living room into a public place and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
Clark was given a four-month sentence.
Gil McKinnon, Clark's lawyer, said his client is happy with the outcome and glad to be getting on with his life, but he's not interested in talking about his court fight.
McKinnon said the Supreme Court rejected the notion that people's private living spaces can be turned into public places just because someone can see inside.
"A person has the freedom in his or her own living room to do whatever they choose to do and is not caught by the criminal law if they have no intent to offend or insult someone who may not be on that private property."
The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.
But in this case, the evidence suggested Clark had no idea he was being watched, the court found.
John Russell, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was surprised the case got before the courts in the first place.
But he said he was relieved the ruling went the way it did.
If it had gone the other way, "we would have to be a lot more careful about closing the drapes or covering up.
"In fact, most Canadians are careful in those ways and it would appear that the poor man had just failed to take the formal precautions."
He seems to have gotten a firm grip on the issue at hand.
The later moved into the kitchen to tenderize her steak with a hammer.
Ah, assumes facts not in evidence (or at least not on this thread :).
Why is this news? Canadians ARE wankers.
"The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom."
15 minutes?! Sounds like they were more interested than upset.
I'm not assuming facts. They were facts I read in another news report. Obviously many thought the man intended to be seen (not just me) or the case would not have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. This story just tells the defense perspective.
See, that's just the thing. Was it in fact in the privacy of his home? We agree it was in his home, but is everything inside your home private?
If you play loud music from inside your home, that's not "private," because the neighbors can hear. Likewise, it you put on a display in front of the windows, it's no longer private.
If he closed his blinds before he got his jerk on, it would be private; if he does it in front of the window, it's somewhat public.
People have a lot of rights inside their homes that they don't have out on the streets. One of those rights is to sexual activity in private. But another one of those rights is to be free from offensive displays, to a certain degree.
hehe.....nice play on words......I wonder if it still applies if you are doing it on the roof
I would be very interested to see what the other news report had to say. based on this, it sounds like the neighbors are the ones who should be charged with a crime. They were the peeping toms, hiding behind their blinds, using binoculars and a freaking telescope, trying to tape it....seriously, WTF? Sounds like they were going out of their way to watch something that ordinarily wouldn't be noticable. NOw if the man was actually standing in front of the window on purpose, that's a whole different story. But if he was so clearly visible to the neighbors, why did they need binoculars?
'tis OK to post a link to the other stoy(ies) for us.....
I remember another story. This elderly woman called the police to complain that she could see her neighbor walking naked in his apartment across the street from her bedroom. When the police came to her home, they could only see the top half of his body and told her he's not doing anything wrong since his genitals couldn't be seen.
The old lady then replied, "Stand on the bed, stand on the bed!"
Hey, I'm a Canadian you Yanker.
Hey, I was just jerking your chain. Besides, you guys can't play hockey and deserve scorn.
I'm surprised they didn't get him on an animal cruelty
charge, for choking the chicken.
Did his hand go to sleep after he was done?
They did notice it was holding a cigarette though.
Don't worry, I'm not offended. Just couldn't resist the play on words with "Yank" as a description for Americans.
You guys can handle the stick pretty well, it's just that you seem forget the goal. We're talkin' hockey, of course. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.