R. v. Le

R. v. Le

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the cream-coloured purse was the accused's and that she had knowledge and control of the cocaine found in an inner pocket; however, the Crown failed to exclude the reasonable alternative inference that the quantity was for personal use or attributable to familial supply connections (the sister), so possession for the purpose of trafficking was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction only on the included offence of possession.

Citation
2012 BCSC 462
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Thao Hoang Thanh Le
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (judgment After Voir Dire)
Outcome
Convicted of the included offence of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine); acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking under CDSA s.5(2).
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Circumstantial Evidence, Expert Opinion, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Evidence Possession Trafficking Circumstantial Evidence Expert Opinion Voir Dire

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Thao Hoang Thanh Le

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (judgment After Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had knowledge and control of the cocaine found in the cream-coloured purse
  2. 2 Whether the accused possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking
  3. 3 Whether items found in the apartment could be attributed to the accused or to her sister, the target of the police investigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the cream-coloured purse was the accused's and that she had knowledge and control of the cocaine found in an inner pocket; however, the Crown failed to exclude the reasonable alternative inference that the quantity was for personal use or attributable to familial supply connections (the sister), so possession for the purpose of trafficking was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction only on the included offence of possession.

Court Disposition

Convicted of the included offence of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine); acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking under CDSA s.5(2).

Orders

  • Convicted of possession of cocaine (included offence).
  • Charge of possession for purpose of trafficking dismissed due to reasonable doubt.