R. v. Izzard

R. v. Izzard

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had physical possession and control of the prison package and that, based on furtive conduct (surreptitious transfer, concealment, arranging delivery by calls, deliberate efforts to avoid detection and to suitcase the package during searches), the accused knew or was willfully blind to the presence of a controlled substance; the duress defence lacked an air of reality and was rejected.

Citation
2013 NSPC 12
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Thomas Izzard
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Conviction / Trial Decision (guilty)
Outcome
Guilty of possession contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Legal Topics
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Willful Blindness, Duress, Strip Search, Solicitor Client Privilege, Chain of Custody
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Search and Seizure Corrections Possession of a Controlled Substance Willful Blindness Duress Strip Search +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Thomas Izzard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Conviction / Trial Decision (guilty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the accused in possession of Hydromorphone?
  2. 2 Did the accused know or was he willfully blind to the presence of a controlled substance?
  3. 3 Does the defence of duress have an air of reality?

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had physical possession and control of the prison package and that, based on furtive conduct (surreptitious transfer, concealment, arranging delivery by calls, deliberate efforts to avoid detection and to suitcase the package during searches), the accused knew or was willfully blind to the presence of a controlled substance; the duress defence lacked an air of reality and was rejected.

Court Disposition

Guilty of possession contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Orders

  • Found guilty of possession of Hydromorphone contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act