R. v. Jacquard

R. v. Jacquard

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused had the necessary combination of knowledge of the substance and control over it: Jacquard's receipt of the package did not prove knowledge of its contents and MacIsaac's proximity to packages in a shared duplex was insufficient to establish possession.

Citation
2010 NSSC 32
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Derald Anthony Jacquard; Accused: Laird James MacIsaac
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act / Trial Decision
Outcome
Both accused found not guilty
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Elements of Possession: Knowledge and Control, Agreed Statement of Facts (s.655 Criminal Code), Charter Application Withdrawn
Source Language
English

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Derald Anthony Jacquard

Accused

Laird James MacIsaac

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act / Trial Decision

  1. 1 Whether either accused had possession of the controlled substance
  2. 2 Whether the accuseds had knowledge of the contents of the package
  3. 3 Whether the accuseds exercised the requisite control over the substance

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused had the necessary combination of knowledge of the substance and control over it: Jacquard's receipt of the package did not prove knowledge of its contents and MacIsaac's proximity to packages in a shared duplex was insufficient to establish possession.

Court Disposition

Both accused found not guilty

Orders

  • Derald Anthony Jacquard: Not guilty of offence contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
  • Laird James MacIsaac: Not guilty of offence contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act