R. v. Gardner

R. v. Gardner

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had possession (personal, constructive or joint) of the firearm and ammunition on or about September 13, 2020 because reasonable, evidence‑grounded alternatives existed: the fingerprints could have been left long before the incident, the vehicle...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 BCSC 1862
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Steven Stuart Douglas Gardner
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Acquitted of Counts 2, 3, and 5
Legal Topics
Possession, Constructive Possession, Joint Possession, Fingerprint Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof, Firearm Registration
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Firearms Law Evidence Law Possession Constructive Possession Joint Possession Fingerprint Evidence Circumstantial Evidence +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Steven Stuart Douglas Gardner

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had personal, constructive or joint possession of a restricted firearm and ammunition on or about September 13, 2020
  2. 2 Whether fingerprints on the firearm and ammunition established temporal contact sufficient to prove possession on the date charged
  3. 3 Whether the accused held a firearm registration certificate as required for lawful possession of a restricted firearm

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had possession (personal, constructive or joint) of the firearm and ammunition on or about September 13, 2020 because reasonable, evidence‑grounded alternatives existed: the fingerprints could have been left long before the incident, the vehicle was registered to and could have been operated by others (including the registered owner), and there was insufficient evidence that the accused knew of and controlled the gun and ammunition on the date charged; therefore the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted of Counts 2, 3, and 5

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of Counts 2, 3, and 5 in the indictment