R. v. MacKeigan

R. v. MacKeigan

On the proven facts—undercover testimony establishing the accused's close knowledge of Lynds' drug activities, dealership records showing a $10,000 cash down payment in many small bills supplied at purchase, CRA records failing to show a legitimate source, and the accused's own statements and conduct (including inducing an uncle to lie)—the only reasonable inference was that Lynds provided the down payment from drug proceeds and the accused knew or was wilfully blind to that fact; accordingly guilty on Count 1. The Crown failed to prove possession or tainted origin for other property alleged in Count 2, so acquittal on that count was required.

Citation
2011 NSPC 37
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Sherrill Leigh MacKeigan
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Oral Decision (conviction on One Count, Acquittal on One Count)
Outcome
Count 1: Guilty; Count 2: Acquitted
Legal Topics
Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Knowledge and Wilful Blindness, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence, Undercover Investigation Evidence, Seizure and Restraint of Assets
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Evidence Possession of Proceeds of Crime Knowledge and Wilful Blindness Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Undercover Investigation Evidence Seizure and Restraint of Assets

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Sherrill Leigh MacKeigan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Oral Decision (conviction on One Count, Acquittal on One Count)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused possessed property that was proceeds of crime within meaning of Criminal Code ss.354 and 355
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the illicit origin of the funds used as the vehicle down payment
  3. 3 Admissibility and relevance of documentary evidence (CRA records, insurance forms, registration)

Ratio Decidendi

On the proven facts—undercover testimony establishing the accused's close knowledge of Lynds' drug activities, dealership records showing a $10,000 cash down payment in many small bills supplied at purchase, CRA records failing to show a legitimate source, and the accused's own statements and conduct (including inducing an uncle to lie)—the only reasonable inference was that Lynds provided the down payment from drug proceeds and the accused knew or was wilfully blind to that fact; accordingly guilty on Count 1. The Crown failed to prove possession or tainted origin for other property alleged in Count 2, so acquittal on that count was required.

Court Disposition

Count 1: Guilty; Count 2: Acquitted

Orders

  • Count 1: Convicted under Criminal Code s.355(a) (possession of property derived from the commission of an indictable offence)
  • Count 2: Acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence