R. v. Ifejika

R. v. Ifejika Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-08-30 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 531 Docket numbers C55968 Judges Doherty, David H.; Rosenberg, Marc; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Ifejika, 2013 ONCA 531 DATE: 20130830 DOCKET: C55968 Doherty, Rosenberg and Tulloch JJ.A. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Juliet Ifejika Appellant Ingrid Grant, for the appellant Erin K. Carley, for the respondent Heard: August 13, 2013 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice R. Reid of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2011 and the sentence imposed on January 20, 2012. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant was self-represented on appeal. Duty counsel made careful submissions on her behalf. Those submissions caused us to reserve judgment. Upon further review, we are satisfied that the appeal must be dismissed. [2] The appellant was charged with importing heroin into Canada. The case turned on whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew there was heroin in the package when she took delivery from the police officer posing as a courier for a delivery service. [3] The trial judge gave thorough reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence that she did not know the package contained heroin and she took delivery of it as a favour for a friend. The trial judge’s reasons in this respect are unimpeachable. Of course, mere disbelief of the appellant cannot justify a conviction. [4] It is not entirely clear whether the trial judge convicted on the basis that the appellant actually knew that there was heroin in the package or on the basis that she was wilfully blind to that fact. Either would suffice in law. [5] On the trial judge’s factual findings, there was ample reason for the appellant to be very suspicious of the contents of the package. First, and perhaps more importantly, the package was addressed to the appellant, although her last name was misspelled. Surely, the appellant, who claimed she had nothing to do with the package and was picking it up as a favour for a friend, would be suspicious, unless of course she knew the contents, when she saw that the package was addressed to her. [6] In addition to the labelling of the package, there was also evidence that the appellant attended to pick up the package on two separate occasions. While she offered an explanation for the intended recipient’s inability to pick up the package on the first occasion, she had no explanation for her willingness to attend on the second occasion. This conduct seems inconsistent with someone who is merely doing a friend a favour. [7] Finally, the appellant did not put her own address on the document she signed acknowledging receipt of the package. Again, this conduct is consistent with at least knowledge that the package contained contraband of some sort. [8] On the entirety of the evidence, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant knew that the package contained narcotics, or that she was wilfully blind as to the contents of the package. [9] The conviction appeal must be dismissed. [10] The appellant received a seven-year sentence. Given the drug involved, heroin, the amount imported, 500 grams, and the controlling case law, we cannot say that the sentence was unfit. [11] The sentence appeal is dismissed.