R. v. K.W.

(Medicine Hat, P.C.).  Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in relation to a variety of drugs, including cannabis, MDMA, Meth and pills.  Trial began in 2014 within a voir dire to determine the admissibility of statements. The trial judge excluded the statements as a result of breaches of the client’s right to retain and instruct counsel.  The statements were germane to the Crown's ability to prove "possession for the purpose of trafficking" beyond a reasonable doubt. Without the statements, the judge with left a reasonable doubt and acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding possession of the narcotics.  KW is an example of the necessity for a multi-facetted preparation for a drug trial.  As has been suggested in other posts, defending a drug case is sometimes akin to peeling layers off an onion. The Charter is a powerful tool to defend against a variety of types of evidence. Excluding the fruits of a search can sunder a drug case. Having a statement thrown-out can crumple the Crown's ability to prove the most serious elements of the case or could be a complete defence. David Chow is an experienced Medicine Hat drug lawyer.  He is a Calgary criminal defence lawyer who appears as an Alberta drug lawyer on cases Alberta-wide.