Mar 17, 2014

Summary of R. v. Quach

R. v. Quach, 2008 SKPC 62 (CanLII)
The co-accused were jointly charged that they did: 1) unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act; 2) unlawfully have in their possession a controlled substance to wit: cocaine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act; 3) have in their possession property to wit: Canadian currency in the amount of $50,000 (of a value exceeding five thousand dollars), knowing that all or part of the property was obtained directly or indirectly in Canada by the commission of an offence punishable by indictment, to wit: unlawfully possess a controlled substance to wit: cocaine, contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, contrary to section 354(1)(a) and 355(a) of the Criminal Code; and 4) unlawfully traffic in a controlled substance to wit: cocaine, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. The issue before the court was whether the two accused had knowledge and control of the cocaine, trafficking paraphernalia, and money found in the apartment and white Acura motor vehicle, and therefore had these items in their possession.HELD: The accused are not guilty of all charges. The court finds that the accused were neither in possession of cocaine and drug trafficking paraphernalia found in an apartment, nor large sums of money found in an apartment and a car parked in the apartment building lot. The Crown has established the two accused were found in the apartment when police executed a search warrant. There is, however, no evidence before the court as to what connection, apart from their presence in the apartment, each of the accused had to the apartment and the white Acura motor vehicle. The evidence does not reveal what length of time each of the accused had been in the apartment or how they gained entry to it. There was no evidence that either of the accused had keys to the apartment. There is no surveillance evidence revealing either accused used or operated the vehicle, no fingerprints on the vehicle or its contents, no personal possessions found in the vehicle, and no evidence either accused was the registered owner or had insured the vehicle.