Ashli Pinnock

The respondent was convicted of importing approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine into Canada on December 1, 2015, concealed in four containers (Metamucil, curry spice, and psyllium fibre powder) in her personal belongings upon return from Jamaica.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence sought three to five years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' incarceration at the low end of the established range for multi-kilogram cocaine importation, along with a mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the respondent's personal circumstances, community support, and pro-social conduct since arrest as mitigating factors, but found these did not warrant a departure below the applicable sentencing range given the serious nature of multi-kilogram drug importation.

The Crown charged two defendants with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The case involved circumstantial evidence of identity, including BlackBerry Messenger communications recovered from the deceased intruder's phone.

The court admitted hearsay evidence under the present intentions exception and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown established that the defendants were members of a conspiracy to commit the break-in through analysis of cryptic text messages, DNA evidence, and circumstantial connections.

Both defendants were convicted.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence that the accused knowingly or was wilfully blind to the fact that four jars in her suitcase contained approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved the requisite mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility due to multiple inconsistencies with her police statements and with her niece's testimony.

The court concluded that the accused either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind to the contents of the jars, and convicted her as charged.