PARTIES AND POLITICS
Waylon James Molyneaux to hear judge’s decision in child pornography trial on Dec. 4
People gathering at election results viewing parties to watch The Guardian’s Decision ’18 Election Night Live!
A Summerside man accused of taking nude photos of an underage girl will find out in December if a judge will find him guilty of two child pornography charges.
Waylon James Molyneaux appeared before Judge John Douglas in provincial court in Charlottetown Tuesday where lawyers on both sides made their submissions at the end of the trial.
Molyneaux is facing charges of possessing child pornography and making child pornography.
In her submissions, Crown attorney Lisa Goulden said a witness who saw the photos on Molyneaux’s phone was clear that they were pornographic.
During the trial, the court heard from a witness who testified about finding six or seven photos on Molyneaux’s phone of an underage girl, including some that had the girl’s buttocks, vagina and legs exposed.
Although the witness deleted the photos, the police were able to recover them from Molyneaux’s phone after he consented to let them search it.
Molyneaux also told the police he took the pictures without looking at his phone’s screen and didn’t know what he was taking pictures of.
He didn’t testify during the trial.
The defence raised issues with how the police recovered the photos.
The Crown didn’t submit them into evidence.
Instead, the Crown is relying on the witness’s testimony about the pictures Goulden described as being “direct and purposeful”.
In his submissions, defence lawyer Peter Ghiz said there wasn’t enough evidence for Douglas to come to the conclusion that the photos were pornographic.
Ghiz also argued the witness’s testimony was inadmissible because there had to be a reasonable explanation for why the photos weren’t before the court.
The Crown didn’t state a reason for not relying on the photos, Ghiz said.
During Goulden’s submissions, she also argued that if Douglas didn’t find Molyneaux guilty of the child pornography charges, he could find the accused guilty of voyeurism.
For that offence, Goulden said there was no requirement that the photos were taken for a sexual purpose.
Goulden said the facts and evidence established Molyneaux took the photos in a situation where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Ghiz planned to make further written submissions on the voyeurism matter but said in court the photos were taken in plain view.
Douglas will deliver his verdict on Dec. 4. A publication ban prevents the release of any details that could identify the victim.