Regina v. P* was a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, New Westminster Registry in which the accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, as well as a second charge of cultivating marijuana. The Case For The Prosecution The facts in the case were not in dispute. In May, 1997, the police searched a residential property in Surrey, B.C. pursuant to a search warrant. Inside a locked, detached garage behind over 100 marijuana plants in varying growth stages the house they found a sophisticated hydroponic growing operation with an estimated "street value" between forty-eight and sixty-two thousand dollars. Inside the house police found in plain view in the living room a set of electronic scales as well two bags in the living room, one containing 7 grams of marijuana bud and the other containing 21 grams. In one of the two bedrooms police found two half-pound sealed bags of marijuana, pruners, and a high-wattage light bulb of the type used in the grow operation. Both tenants of the rented premises were arrested. The Case For The Defence Stern and Albert represented the defendant "P". At trial, David Albert acknowledged that marijuana was being cultivated at the property on the date in question and that the nature and scope of the operation was such that the marijuana was being grown for a commercial purpose. However, he presented a defence based on whether Ms. P had the legally required level of knowledge and control of the marijuana to be found in possession, a necessary element of the charge that must be proven in order to obtain a conviction. Under cross-examination the investigating police officer acknowledged that the noises and odours he had observed coming from the garage (which formed the basis for the search warrant) would not be apparent from the house. During cross-examination the officer also testified that in his opinion the items found in the living room, viewed in isolation, did not support a conclusion that the marijuana found there was for trafficking. Mr. Albert argued that the marijuana found in the living room was not sufficient to allow for a conviction for trafficking, there was insufficient evidence to connect P to the marijuana found in the bedroom closet, and on the cultivation charge there was no evidence that P had access to the growing operation in the garage by key. The Result The judge concluded that while it was reasonable to infer that P had knowledge of the marijuana in the living room and possible to infer that she knew of the marijuana in the bedroom and the garage, in the latter case that was only one of the available inferences. As P had been charged with trafficking, the simple possession of marijuana in the living room was not sufficient to support a conviction in the circumstances of this case, and P was acquitted on both charges. * To request a copy of the complete reasons for judgment in this case, please click here. Case Study Disclaimer: The case studies on this web site are intended to be illustrative of various legal situations for which Stern & Albert commonly appear as legal counsel. Every case is unique. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases. Back to Case Studies

Tel: (604) 590-5600  |  Fax: (604) 590-5626  |  Email: info@sternandalbert.com Site Design: Skunkworks Creative Group

LawOne Network Law Firm: Vancouver + Surrey Criminal Lawyers