D. Hayton

The applicant, charged with various drug and property offences, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his rural property.

The police initially obtained a warrant to search for a handgun but subsequently found large amounts of cash and drugs, leading to a second warrant.

The court found the first warrant was overbroad and excised portions allowing searches of outbuildings.

The court also found the police breached the applicant's section 8 Charter rights by unreasonably seizing cash from his person during the initial entry.

Finally, the court ruled the second warrant was invalid due to improper 'adjudicator shopping' by the affiant, rendering the subsequent seizures warrantless.

The section 24(2) analysis was deferred to a later hearing.

Two accused were tried on multiple counts arising from a lengthy police investigation into a large-scale drug trafficking operation involving cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, cannabis resin, and MDMA.

The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance, search warrants, seized narcotics and cash from a suspected stash house, and evidence of the accused attending the location and interacting with suspected suppliers.

The court held that conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs found in a locked room of the stash house.

Although surveillance and other evidence raised suspicion, the court concluded that reasonable doubt remained regarding whether either accused had knowledge and control of the narcotics, particularly in light of testimony explaining the presence of keys and frequent attendance at the residence.

One accused was acquitted on all counts, while the other was acquitted of the major trafficking counts but convicted of a separate marijuana trafficking charge.