R. v. Binning

R. v. Binning

On the facts the Crown proved control and, by legitimate inference from quantity, packaging, keys, rental arrangements, travel patterns, receipts, cell phone links, fingerprints and detection dog indications, that Binning and Mander knew (or were wilfully blind to) the u-haul contained large quantities of Cannabis...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 1126
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mandeep Singh Binning; Accused: Sukh A. Singh Mander; Accused: Ranjit Singh Sandhu; Accused: Iqbal Singh
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charges Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code (possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds, Conspiracy) / Trial Judgment Following Voir Dire; Convictions on Possession Counts and Acquittal on Conspiracy Counts
Outcome
Convictions: Mandeep Singh Binning and Sukh A. Singh Mander found guilty of Counts 2 and 3 (possession of Psilocybin and Cannabis for purposes of trafficking under s.5(2) CDSA). Ranjit Singh Sandhu and Iqbal Singh found guilty of Count 4 (possession of $99,700 knowing it was proceeds of trafficking under s.5(1) CDSA...
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Knowledge and Control, Wilful Blindness, Proceeds of Crime, Conspiracy, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Criminal Code Evidence (voir Dire) Possession for Purpose of Trafficking Knowledge and Control Wilful Blindness Proceeds of Crime +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mandeep Singh Binning

Accused

Sukh A. Singh Mander

Accused

Ranjit Singh Sandhu

Accused

Iqbal Singh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charges Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code (possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds, Conspiracy) / Trial Judgment Following Voir Dire; Convictions on Possession Counts and Acquittal on Conspiracy Counts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did each accused have knowledge of and control over the drugs or money alleged?
  2. 2 Can knowledge be inferred from physical control, surrounding circumstances and wilful blindness?
  3. 3 Were the elements of conspiracy proven?

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the Crown proved control and, by legitimate inference from quantity, packaging, keys, rental arrangements, travel patterns, receipts, cell phone links, fingerprints and detection dog indications, that Binning and Mander knew (or were wilfully blind to) the u-haul contained large quantities of Cannabis and Psilocybin; similarly Singh and Sandhu had possession of $99,700 and knew it was proceeds of trafficking; conspiracy was not established because the Crown failed to prove agreement and common unlawful design among all four accused.

Court Disposition

Convictions: Mandeep Singh Binning and Sukh A. Singh Mander found guilty of Counts 2 and 3 (possession of Psilocybin and Cannabis for purposes of trafficking under s.5(2) CDSA). Ranjit Singh Sandhu and Iqbal Singh found guilty of Count 4 (possession of $99,700 knowing it was proceeds of trafficking under s.5(1) CDSA...

Orders

  • Convictions entered as stated for Counts 2, 3 and 4
  • Counts 5, 6 and 7 dismissed (conspiracy charges)