A. J. Leising

The applicant sought a mistrial after being convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming trial counsel prevented him from testifying and coerced him into signing written instructions declining to testify.

The court reviewed affidavit and viva voce evidence from the applicant and three defence lawyers involved in the case, assessing whether counsel overrode the applicant’s decision or exerted improper pressure.

The court found the applicant’s testimony not credible and accepted the evidence of counsel that the decision not to testify was the applicant’s informed and voluntary choice after receiving strong but legitimate legal advice.

The court held that the legal representation fell well within the range of competent counsel and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Following interception of a parcel from India containing heroin hidden in pneumatic valve joints, police conducted a controlled delivery to a former rooming house address connected to the accused.

The trial judge rejected the accused’s denial of knowledge and found his police statement and supporting defence evidence to be fabricated.

Applying circumstantial-evidence principles, the court relied on the value of the heroin, the accused’s surveillance-like driving, his acceptance of delivery for a former tenant, the removal of the shipping wrapper, and cellphone evidence linking him to the tracking number and communications from India.

The court held that the accused knowingly possessed heroin for the purpose of trafficking, aided the importation, and was a party to a conspiracy to import heroin.