2 total
Accused acquitted decision
The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").
The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.
The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.
However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.
Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).
The accused was convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine based on intercepted wiretap communications.
Giedrius Kesminas was tried on two counts: conspiracy to import cocaine (Count 7) and conspiracy to utter forged documents (Count 11), stemming from "Project Southam." The Crown's case relied heavily on wiretap evidence.
Kesminas denied participation, claiming he only pretended to agree to the cocaine importation scheme.
The court applied the two-step Carter analysis for conspiracy membership, rejecting Kesminas's "pretence" defence and finding him an enthusiastic participant.
Kesminas was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt on Count 7.
However, the court reserved its decision on Count 11 due to a material discrepancy between the indictment's particularization (registering a property in Helen Lauro's name) and the evidence presented (obtaining a mortgage for Hans Lauro), citing the principle from R. v. Saunders that the offence as particularized must be proved.