In a circumstantial case involving firearms found in shared premises, the combination and totality of circumstances — including DNA evidence linking the accused to items used in the offence, the accused's association with a co-offender, and descriptions consistent with the accused — may be sufficient for a jury to infer joint possession and participation in an armed robbery, even where the accused is not the sole occupant of the premises. The dissent of Bell J highlights that where multiple persons reside at premises, the mere fact of being the lessee may be insufficient to establish possession of items found there beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the Crown has not excluded the reasonable possibility that another occupant was in exclusive possession.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 31 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 31 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.