Detective John Margetson

The appellant, Devon Dinall, appealed his convictions for trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

His defence at trial was that he was involved in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy, not cocaine.

The primary ground of appeal argued that the trial judge erred in jury instructions on conspiracy and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, specifically by failing to instruct on the possibility of multiple overlapping conspiracies and misrepresenting his admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge, viewed functionally and as a whole, clearly conveyed that conviction required proof of participation in a cocaine conspiracy, despite one misstatement.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's instruction regarding expert evidence on drug slang.

The accused was charged with motor vehicle offenses arising from a police chase and drug-related offenses following the execution of a search warrant.

The court acquitted the accused of the motor vehicle charges, finding the fleeting eyewitness identification of the driver unreliable.

However, the court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, as circumstantial evidence established he had placed the drugs in plain view in a bathroom immediately prior to his arrest.

The court also admitted a photocopy of a recognizance under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, convicting the accused of breaching his release conditions.

Howard Burke and Devon Dinall were convicted by a jury of drug-related offences (cocaine trafficking) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court determined the factual basis for sentencing, rejecting the defence's argument that marihuana trafficking was also involved.

Howard Burke, a repeat offender, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for trafficking 2.320 kg of cocaine and concurrent three years for possession of $76,880 in proceeds.

Devon Dinall, a mid-level trafficker, was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic 306g of cocaine, concurrent three and a half years for trafficking, and concurrent one year for possession of $15,560 in proceeds.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, considering aggravating factors like the volume of drugs and prior records, and mitigating factors like employment and personal challenges.

A preliminary inquiry ruling on committal for trial involving five defendants charged with multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession of firearms, shootings, and criminal organization offences.

The Crown sought committal on 52 counts based on intercepted communications, surveillance evidence, and physical evidence.

The court applied the scintilla test for committal, requiring evidence on each essential element such that a reasonable jury could return a guilty verdict.

The judge committed the defendants on most counts while discharging them on certain fentanyl-related charges absent specific evidence of fentanyl trafficking.

The court found sufficient evidence of a criminal organization (SSW-G2M) engaged in drug trafficking and violence to enforce territorial control.

The accused, Justin Hung, applied to reopen his trial and declare a mistrial after being found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Post-conviction analysis revealed significant inaccuracies in the Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) regarding the quantity and value of methamphetamine.

The original ASF stated 700.65 grams of methamphetamine (worth up to $46,800), but the actual amount was 15.54 grams (worth potentially much less, depending on market factors).

The court found that the incorrect high value of the drugs played a role in its initial assessment of the accused's credibility and the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

Given that the fresh evidence could reasonably have affected the trial's outcome, the court allowed the application to reopen the case, set aside the finding of guilt, and declared a mistrial to ensure fairness and avoid any appearance of bias in re-evaluating credibility.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime (money over $5,000).

The Crown relied on expert evidence regarding the quantity of cocaine seized (104 grams packaged in four separate baggies), drug paraphernalia (scale, spoon, baggies), cash found in the residence, and a recorded telephone conversation.

The defence argued the cocaine was for personal use and that much of the money found belonged to the accused's partner.

The trial judge found that key facts relied upon by the Crown's expert were not proven at trial, significantly diminishing the probative value of the expert opinion.

The court found reasonable doubt existed regarding the trafficking charges and convicted only on simple possession.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 31.58 grams of crystal meth in his possession.

He pleaded guilty to simple possession but contested the trafficking charge.

The Crown relied heavily on expert evidence from a police detective regarding typical consumption and trafficking patterns to argue the quantity was too large for personal use.

The court excluded portions of the expert's evidence that touched on the ultimate issue or lacked a reliable foundation.

Ultimately, the court found that while the quantity was large, it was not impossible for it to be for personal use, and the absence of other trafficking indicia left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of trafficking but convicted of simple possession.

Sentencing following jury convictions for possession of prohibited substances and possession of MDMA/methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police stopped the accused for Highway Traffic Act concerns and discovered 1,077 ecstasy pills with an estimated street value between approximately $10,770 and $21,540, along with smaller quantities of other drugs.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record including drug offences, breaches of court orders, and domestic assaults, and had demonstrated poor compliance with community supervision.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount in serious trafficking offences and that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the offender’s history and the quantity of drugs involved.

A global penitentiary sentence of 2.5 years was imposed with ancillary DNA and forfeiture orders.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police executing a search warrant observed her at a window and later located a pink pencil case outside containing approximately 135 grams of methamphetamine packaged in multiple baggies.

The court accepted the evidence of a police officer who observed a flash of pink leaving the accused’s hand and later recovered the case below the apartment window.

Defence evidence asserting that a window screen made it impossible to throw the case outside was rejected as inconsistent and unreliable.

While the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and knowingly discarded the drugs, the Crown failed to prove that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, as there was no additional indicia of trafficking discovered during the search.

The accused was therefore convicted of simple possession but acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.