Surinder Singh Aujla

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine following an alleged hand-to-hand transaction with an undercover officer.

Upon arrest within 60 seconds of the transaction, neither the marked buy money nor the remaining drugs were found on the appellant or in the area, and no officer saw him discard anything.

The trial judge relied on the officers' recognition of the appellant to resolve identity but failed to address whether the transaction actually occurred.

The Court of Appeal held that the missing evidence and lack of opportunity to dispose of it rendered the verdict unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis of three trial errors: the exclusion of a videotape without the trial judge viewing it, a jury charge on reasonable doubt that failed to comply with Lifchus by omitting the absence of evidence, and the admission of prejudicial expert evidence regarding the social consequences of crack cocaine use.

The Court of Appeal found that these three errors cumulatively rendered the trial unfair.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.