The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, as well as his sentence imposed in absentia.
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence from a police officer regarding drug trafficking and the roles of persons in a three-person transaction.
The Court of Appeal held that while the officer was allowed too much latitude, the core of his testimony was admissible and the trial judge was aware of its limitations.
The court also rejected arguments that the verdict was unreasonable and that evidence from one count could not be considered for another.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit and the sparse reasons were due to the appellant having absconded.
