R. v. Cashman

R. v. Cashman

Viewing the totality of the circumstantial evidence logically and in light of human experience, including surveillance connecting the accused to both residences, the security monitor located in his bedroom, the large quantities of drugs and cash, expert evidence on distribution and security practices, and the pattern of attendances to conceal activity, the only reasonable inference is that the accused had knowledge and a degree of control over the controlled substances (constructive possession); accordingly the accused was guilty on counts 3-9.

Citation
2022 BCSC 892
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Scott William Cashman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Convicted on counts 3 through 9 of the indictment (possession for the purpose of trafficking).
Legal Topics
Constructive Possession, Joint Possession, Party Liability (aiding/abetting), Circumstantial Evidence, Search and Seizure, Surveillance Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Evidence Constructive Possession Joint Possession Party Liability (aiding/abetting) Circumstantial Evidence Search and Seizure +1 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Scott William Cashman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had knowledge and control of controlled substances found at the Columbia Street Residence (constructive or joint possession)
  2. 2 Whether the accused was a party to possession (aiding/abetting)
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence, viewed cumulatively, permits only the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Viewing the totality of the circumstantial evidence logically and in light of human experience, including surveillance connecting the accused to both residences, the security monitor located in his bedroom, the large quantities of drugs and cash, expert evidence on distribution and security practices, and the pattern of attendances to conceal activity, the only reasonable inference is that the accused had knowledge and a degree of control over the controlled substances (constructive possession); accordingly the accused was guilty on counts 3-9.

Court Disposition

Convicted on counts 3 through 9 of the indictment (possession for the purpose of trafficking).

Orders

  • Accused found guilty on counts 3 through 9 (possession for the purpose of trafficking).