R. v. Huard

R. v. Huard

Given the accused's de facto ownership and control of the Chrysler, the personal items and identification in the vehicle linking him to it, and the firearm and ammunition found in a bag in the trunk in plain view, the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused knowingly had control of the restricted firearm; accordingly, convict on Count 1 and stay Count 2 under Kienapple.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1010
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jackson Paul Huard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession of Restricted Firearm / Oral Reasons for Judgment (guilty Verdict, in Chambers)
Outcome
Accused found guilty on Count 1 (possession of a restricted firearm); stay of proceedings entered on Count 2 pursuant to Kienapple
Legal Topics
Possession (s.95), Unlicensed/non‑registered Restricted Firearm, Circumstantial Evidence, Kienapple Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Firearms Law Evidence Search and Seizure Possession (s.95) Unlicensed/non‑registered Restricted Firearm Circumstantial Evidence Kienapple Stay of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jackson Paul Huard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession of Restricted Firearm / Oral Reasons for Judgment (guilty Verdict, in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused knowingly had possession of the restricted firearm found in the trunk
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence of de facto ownership and control of the vehicle establishes possession beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Application of s.4(3)(a) Criminal Code regarding possession

Ratio Decidendi

Given the accused's de facto ownership and control of the Chrysler, the personal items and identification in the vehicle linking him to it, and the firearm and ammunition found in a bag in the trunk in plain view, the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused knowingly had control of the restricted firearm; accordingly, convict on Count 1 and stay Count 2 under Kienapple.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on Count 1 (possession of a restricted firearm); stay of proceedings entered on Count 2 pursuant to Kienapple

Orders

  • Conviction entered on Count 1 (Contrary to s.95(1) Criminal Code)
  • Stay of proceedings entered on Count 2 (Contrary to s.91(1) Criminal Code)