The appellant was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after a handgun was found in a closet in an apartment where he was staying.
He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding constructive possession and wilful blindness.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
The court found the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury that they could convict if the appellant 'ought to have known' about the gun, and improperly left wilful blindness as a basis for liability without also requiring proof of control over the weapon.
