Supreme Court

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Frank C. Edwards

Heard:

March 11 & 12, 2014 in Sydney, Nova Scotia

Oral Decision:

March 17, 2014

Written Release of Oral Decision:

March 21, 2014

Subject:

Criminal Law:  Possession of stolen property, “Doctrine” of recent possession, wilful blindness, s. 354 (1)(a) Code.

Facts:

Police with search warrant found recently stolen cabinets, dishes, and pills in Accused’s home.  Accused gave explanation that he had purchased same and had a receipt.  Police did not retrieve the receipt.  Police did no follow-up investigation of Accused’s explanation and immediately laid charges.

Issues:

Whether guilty knowledge of Accused could be inferred; that is, whether “doctrine” of recent possession applied; whether the Accused had been wilfully blind.

Result:

Not Guilty.  Inference of guilty knowledge may only be made where there is no explanation for the possession of recently stolen property by the Accused, or where the explanation provided could not reasonably be true.  Here, though the Court disbelieved the Accused’s explanation, it could reasonably have been true.

Police should have done a follow-up investigation into the merit of the Accused’s explanation.  On the night of his arrest, the Accused told police that he had a receipt for the purchase of the goods.  Police should have attempted to retrieve the receipt or, at a minimum, request the Accused to present it.   Other aspects of the Accused’s explanation should also have been checked.  This should have been done before police decided to lay charges.

Wilful blindness:  To engage the doctrine of wilful blindness, there must be a real suspicion in the mind of the Accused that is ignored.  Here the Accused claimed to have paid $900.00 for cupboards, less a countertop, that had been disassembled and in poor condition.  The Accused also claimed to have paid $100.00 for the “dishes” and a vacuum cleaner.  The Accused did not possess the degree of sophistication from which the Court could infer a recognition that the “dishes” were in fact fine china.  There was no evidence presented on the value of the china.

The presence of the dated prescription pill bottle of canine medication in the box with the dishes would be meaningless to the Accused.  In short, there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that there ought to have been a real suspicion in the mind of the Accused.

Cases Cited:

R. v. Kowlyk [1988] 2  S.C.R. 59; 43 C.C.C. (3) 1;  R. v. Wiseman (1989), 52 C.C.C. (3) 160;  R. v. Graham, [1974] S.C.R. 59, 7 C.C.C. (2d) 93 (7:0);  R. v. Saieva [1982] 1 S.C.R. 897, 68 C.C.C. (2d) 97 (7:0);  R. v. Killam (1973), 12 C.C.C. (2d) 114, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 3 (B.C.C.A.);  R. v. Ungaro [1950] S.C.R. 430, 96 C.C.C. 245;  R. v. Legace (2003), 181 C.C.C. (3d) 12 (Ont. C.A.)];  R. v. W.D., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 742.