R. v. Arthur

R. v. Arthur

Count 1 (possession of proceeds): Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the cash was proceeds of crime because of insufficient evidential foundation tying the cash to drug trafficking or an organization, lack of meaningful forensic/accounting analysis, and expert opinion lacked necessary underlying facts; evidence from Count 2 could not be used as similar fact evidence without prior application and would prejudice the defence. Count 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking): Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the accused's identity, exclusive control of the partially open box containing 10 kg of cocaine (video corroboration and intercepted...

Citation
2015 BCSC 2185
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Robert Charles Arthur
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Not guilty on Count 1 (possession of proceeds of crime); Guilty on Count 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking)
Legal Topics
Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Trafficking (possession for Purpose of Trafficking), Identification Evidence, Surveillance Operations, Expert Opinion on Money Laundering, Similar Fact Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Drugs Law Evidence Law Proceeds of Crime Charter Law Possession of Proceeds of Crime Trafficking (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) Identification Evidence +3 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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert Charles Arthur

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was properly identified as the person observed in surveillance and on video
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved possession of proceeds of crime: possession, predicate offence provenance, and knowledge
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved possession for the purpose of trafficking (10 kg cocaine)

Ratio Decidendi

Count 1 (possession of proceeds): Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the cash was proceeds of crime because of insufficient evidential foundation tying the cash to drug trafficking or an organization, lack of meaningful forensic/accounting analysis, and expert opinion lacked necessary underlying facts; evidence from Count 2 could not be used as similar fact evidence without prior application and would prejudice the defence. Count 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking): Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the accused's identity, exclusive control of the partially open box containing 10 kg of cocaine (video corroboration and intercepted...

Court Disposition

Not guilty on Count 1 (possession of proceeds of crime); Guilty on Count 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking)

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of Count 1: possession of proceeds of property ($202,685) contrary to s.354(1)(a) Criminal Code
  • Accused found guilty of Count 2: possession for the purpose of trafficking a Schedule I substance (cocaine) contrary to s.5(2) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act