3 total
Accused found guilty of selling chemicals intending their use in unlawful methamphetamine production.
The accused, Abu Mandal, was charged under s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for selling items intending they be used in the unlawful production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine).
The Crown presented circumstantial evidence that Mandal sold chemicals and equipment to an individual operating a clandestine methamphetamine lab.
The central issue was whether Mandal possessed the requisite intent.
The court found that Mandal had knowledge of the unlawful end-use of the chemicals, which was sufficient to establish intent, rejecting the defence's argument that a desire for the outcome was required.
The court relied on principles from aiding and abetting cases under the Criminal Code.
Mandal was found guilty.
The offender was sentenced to seven years in prison for his significant role in a large-scale methamphetamine production operation.
Luan Ngo was found guilty of producing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000.
The Crown sought an eight-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought four to five years.
The court imposed a global sentence of seven years in the penitentiary, with concurrent sentences for the other offences, finding it fit and appropriate given the large-scale operation, the accused's significant role, and the dangerous nature of the drug.
The court also considered the accused's status as a first offender and the efficient conduct of the trial as mitigating factors, alongside potential immigration consequences.
Accused acquitted of drug production and conspiracy as circumstantial video evidence permitted innocent explanations.
The defendant, Ho Ting Char, was charged with conspiracy, unlawful production of methamphetamine, and unlawful production of ketamine.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial video surveillance evidence of the defendant's non-verbal conduct at various locations associated with clandestine drug laboratories.
The court found the evidence, while suspicious, did not unequivocally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was participating in drug production or was part of a conspiracy, as innocent explanations for his conduct could not be excluded.
Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.