R. v. Cluett

R. v. Cluett

Trial judge accepted accused's account that he believed the cocaine and MDMA were lost in Mexico and that he was unaware of the methamphetamine in his clothing; that evidence raised a reasonable doubt on actual knowledge and, assuming arguendo recklessness could substitute for knowledge, Crown failed to prove the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2026 BCSC 228
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: Daniel Jacob Cluett
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Importation Under CDSA / Trial Judgment (verdict)
Outcome
Not guilty on all three counts
Legal Topics
Importation (s.6(1) Cdsa), Mens Rea: Knowledge, Recklessness, Wilful Blindness, Search and Seizure at Airports (cbsa), Evidence: Circumstantial Proof, W.(d.) Credibility Assessment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Regulatory Law Customs/cbsa Importation (s.6(1) Cdsa) Mens Rea: Knowledge, Recklessness, Wilful Blindness Search and Seizure at Airports (cbsa) Evidence: Circumstantial Proof, W.(d.) Credibility Assessment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Daniel Jacob Cluett

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Importation Under CDSA / Trial Judgment (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had actual knowledge of the presence of drugs in his luggage when entering Canada
  2. 2 Whether recklessness can substitute for the knowledge element of s.6(1) CDSA and, if so, whether Crown proved recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of accused's testimony given fentanyl withdrawal and prior record

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge accepted accused's account that he believed the cocaine and MDMA were lost in Mexico and that he was unaware of the methamphetamine in his clothing; that evidence raised a reasonable doubt on actual knowledge and, assuming arguendo recklessness could substitute for knowledge, Crown failed to prove the requisite subjective awareness of risk; accordingly accused acquitted on all counts.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on all three counts

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of three counts of importing controlled substances contrary to s.6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act