In a circumstantial drug trafficking case, where the Crown must prove the accused possessed or brought a large quantity of drugs to premises occupied by others with drug connections, the absence of fingerprints, DNA, or direct evidence linking the accused to the drugs, combined with the unreliability of occupier witnesses, may render the verdict unreasonable where reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence cannot be excluded. The case illustrates that evidence of suspicious conduct (frequent flights, cash deposits, use of aliases) is insufficient to prove trafficking where the essential link between the accused and the specific drugs cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.