Docket: CACR2141 Ory Jules Thingelstad Appellant - v. -, 2012 SKCA 71

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 71 Date: 20120712 Between: Docket: CACR2141 Ory Jules Thingelstad Appellant - and - Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Coram: Klebuc C. J.S., Ottenbreit & Herauf JJ.A. Counsel: Ory Jules Thingelstad in person W. Dean Sinclair for the Crown Appeal:

From: Provincial Court Heard: July 12, 2012 Disposition: Allowed in part Written Reasons: July 13, 2012 By: The Honourable Chief Justice Klebuc In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf Klebuc C.J.S. [ 1 ] The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of making child pornography available contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code .

For this offence, the sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of one year pursuant to s. 163.1(3) ; required the appellant to provide a sample of his DNA; ordered that the appellant’s name be kept on the Sex Offender Information Registry for a period of 20 years pursuant to s. 490(2)(b); imposed a four-year prohibition pursuant to s. 161(1) which prohibits the appellant from being near a park or school; and a three-year probation order which includes, among other things, a requirement that the appellant not possess a computer or device capable of internet access, except for employment purposes, or have an account with an internet provider. [ 2 ] The appellant appealed the custodial sentence, the length of the time his name is to be maintained on the Sex Offender Information Registry and the provision in his probation order which prohibits him from having an internet account. [ 3 ] His appeal with respect to the custodial sentence of one year and the length of time in which his name is to be kept on the Sex Offender Information Registry is dismissed on the basis that the time imposed by the sentencing judge is the minimum length prescribed by ss. 163.1(3) (

a) and 490(2)(

b) respectively. [ 4 ] The Court is satisfied that the provisions of the three-year probation order pertaining to the possession of a computer or device capable of internet access, and the provision prohibiting him from having an account with an internet provider, should be varied as follows: (

a) the appellant shall not possess a computer, tablet, mobile phone or other device capable of accessing the internet, or directly or indirectly accessing an account with an internet service provider, save and excepting as may be necessary for business or employment purposes.