Facts:
Appeal by the accused from conviction and sentence. After drugs were found in the accused's vehicle, he was charged with various offences, including possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of morphine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and money laundering. The accused conceded that he was in possession of methamphetamine, but denied that it was for the purpose of trafficking. At the preliminary inquiry, another individual testified that a portion of the drugs were his and that the accused knew that they were in the car. At trial, he testified that the accused did not know that a portion of the drugs were in the car.
Main issue:
Treatment of the witness' testimony and the treatment of the defence evidence.
Fact : Appeal by the accused from conviction and sentence. After drugs were found in the accused's vehicle, he was charged with various offences, including possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of mor-phine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and money laundering. The accused conceded that he was in possession of methamphetamine, but denied that it was for the purpose of trafficking. At the preliminary inquiry, another individual testified that a portion of the drugs were his and that the accused knew that they were in the car. At trial, he testified that the accused did not know that a portion of the drugs were in the car.
Main issue: treatment of the witness' testimony and in her treatment of the defence evidence
Outcome:
Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge erred in the treatment of the witness' testimony and in the treatment of the defence evidence. The convictions for possession of methamphetamine and morphine for the purpose of trafficking could not stand. Since there was no offence of simple possession of the drugs named in two of the charges, those convictions were quashed. The undisputed evidence showed that the accused had a legitimate source of income and the prosecution did not prove that certain property was obtained by crime. In addition, there was no evidence to support a conviction of money laundering. The sentence on the offences for which the accused remained convicted was reduced to time served. The trial judge erred in principle in imposing a sentence of four years imprisonment without regard to the facts and without assigning a sentence to each individual count. While the sentence was reduced to time served, such a sentence might not have been appropriate if imposed originally as it was excessive for some of the offences, in particular the offence of simple possession. With regard to the sentence: the time already served.
