Law360 Canada ( September 11, 2017, 8:49 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the accused from convictions for attempted kidnapping and attempted aggravated sexual assault of a young person, as well as from the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. Police found the appellant in a forest adjacent to an elementary school. In the appellant’s backpack, police found a car manual, a roll of duct tape, some wires, a garden hoe, latex gloves, pornographic pictures, condoms, girls’ underwear, photographs of naked girls between the ages of about eight and 10, as well as handwritten notes, which discussed the rape and torture of young girls. These offences occurred a few days after the appellant’s thwarted attempt to kidnap, rape, and kill his friend’s young daughter. The trial judge found that the appellant’s writings in the backpack were similar to diary entries. They indicated that before arriving at the park where police found him, the appellant had spent three hours wandering through another park looking for a girl to rape. Both the Crown psychiatrist and the defence psychiatrist testified that, from a psychiatric perspective, the appellant met the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender. The trial judge accepted the Crown psychiatrist’s opinion that the appellant met the diagnostic criteria for several psychiatric disorders, including severe substance dependence disorder involving alcohol and cocaine, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and anti-social personality disorder, with obsessive-compulsive personality traits. The appellant argued that his actions in the forest were not sufficient in law to constitute an attempt to commit the offences at issue and that the trial judge erred in law in finding that his actions went beyond mere preparation and were sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit the offences. He also argued that, given that class in the school had started, he had passed up any opportunity to commit the offences and might have been in the process of abandoning any intention to do so. The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that he met the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender....