R. v. Robertson

R. v. Robertson

On the totality of the evidence the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had constructive or joint possession of the seized items and, for specific items that were clearly identifiable as stolen or significantly unusual in context, the accused either knew they were stolen or was wilfully blind; conversely, for other firearms and for knowledge of lacking licences for some prohibited items the Crown failed to prove the requisite knowledge, and the storage charges were made out because the firearms and ammunition were readily accessible contrary to SOR/98-209 s.5(1).

Citation
2017 BCSC 2402
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jason Robertson; Co Accused: Sarah Robertson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (verdict)
Outcome
Mixed verdict: convictions on specified counts and acquittals on others; sentencing to be scheduled
Legal Topics
Possession, Stolen Property, Wilful Blindness, Constructive and Joint Possession, Circumstantial Evidence, Unlawful Storage of Firearms, Identity Document Offence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law (charter) Firearms Regulation Possession Stolen Property Wilful Blindness Constructive and Joint Possession +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jason Robertson

Accused

Sarah Robertson

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused had possession (actual, constructive or joint) of the items seized
  2. 2 Whether accused knew items were stolen or was wilfully blind
  3. 3 Whether storage of firearms breached regulatory requirements (SOR/98-209 s.5(1))

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had constructive or joint possession of the seized items and, for specific items that were clearly identifiable as stolen or significantly unusual in context, the accused either knew they were stolen or was wilfully blind; conversely, for other firearms and for knowledge of lacking licences for some prohibited items the Crown failed to prove the requisite knowledge, and the storage charges were made out because the firearms and ammunition were readily accessible contrary to SOR/98-209 s.5(1).

Court Disposition

Mixed verdict: convictions on specified counts and acquittals on others; sentencing to be scheduled

Orders

  • Convicted on Count 1 as to possession of the R.C.M.P Heritage rifle and the Little Bighorn Centennial 44-40 rifle knowing they were obtained by the commission of an offence.
  • Acquitted on Count 1 as to the two Tikka rifles, the Marx rifle, and the Savage Mark II rifle.