R. v. Lloyd Date:, 2015 BCPC 262

Citation: R. v. Lloyd Date: 20150911 2015 BCPC 0262 File No: 233248-2-C Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. JOSEPH RYAN LLOYD REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. RIDEOUT Counsel for the Crown: I. Sattarzadeh Counsel for the Defendant: D. Fai Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 5, 6; July 16; Aug 4, 2015 Date of Judgment: September 11, 2015

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Joseph Ryan Lloyd (“Lloyd”) was charged with four offences.

Three of those were related to drug possession for the purpose of trafficking on December 20, 2014, at Vancouver in Methamphetamine (“Crystal meth”), Diacetylmorphine (“Heroin”) and Cocaine contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“ CDSA ”). [ 2 ] In addition, Lloyd was charged with being in possession of identity documents purporting to relate to other persons contrary to s. 56.1(1) of the Criminal Code (“the Code ”). [ 3 ] At the conclusion of his trial, Lloyd advanced a no evidence motion in relation to the Code offence of being in possession of identity documents purporting to relate to other persons.

The application was not seriously challenged by the Crown and, accordingly, that charge was dismissed. ISSUE [ 4 ] The sole issue to be determined is whether or not the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lloyd was in possession of Crystal meth, Heroin, and Cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on December 20, 2014, at Vancouver.

ADMISSIONS [ 5 ] Pursuant to s. 655 of the Code , Lloyd admitted as a fact that members of the Vancouver Police Department maintained: 1) continuity over the drugs and other items seized from Lloyd at the scene of his arrest, 2) continuity over the items seized from the police wagon that transported Lloyd to the jail, and 3) continuity over the drugs and other items seized from the Vancouver jail Sally Port. [ 6 ] In addition, Lloyd admitted as a fact that a sunglasses case seized from Lloyd’s inner pants at the scene of his arrest contained three main bags, in which the first bag had four smaller clear plastic baggies of which three had two smaller baggies inside.

The two smaller baggies were clear with black spades on one side. The fourth baggie was clear. The contents of the baggies were analysed and determined to be Crystal meth. The total weight of the baggies and Crystal meth was 19.61 g. [ 7 ] The second bag in the sunglasses case contained one large clear plastic bag with two clear cellophane bags inside. The contents of the clear cellophane bags were analyzed and determined to be Crystal meth.

The total weight of the baggies and Crystal meth was 32.30 g. [ 8 ] The third bag in the sunglasses case contained four clear plastic baggies, three of which had two smaller bags inside. In addition, the baggies had a red logo on one side with the inscription “Stay High”. The fourth baggie was clear. The contents of the baggies were analyzed and determined to be Heroin. The total weight of the baggies and Heroin was 19.23 g. [ 9 ] Lloyd admitted as a fact that at the jail .61 g of Cocaine was located in a pocket of his jeans.

In addition, two large clear plastic bags were removed from his crotch area and the plastic bags contained three smaller baggies in which the first bag had five smaller clear plastic baggies with green alien faces on one side. The contents of the baggies were analyzed and determined to be Crystal meth with a total weight of 2.71 g. Also located in one of the five clear plastic baggies was .36 g of a substance analyzed and determined to be Cocaine.

The total weight of the baggies, Crystal meth, and Cocaine was 3.07 g. [ 10 ] The second bag removed from Lloyd’s crotch area had twelve smaller baggies containing a clear Crystal substance. Nine of the twelve baggies had green alien faces on one side. One of the baggies had a red side with yellow mushrooms and two of the baggies were clear with black crosses on one side. The contents of these baggies were analyzed and determined to be Crystal meth, with a total weight of 2.92 g. [ 11 ] The third bag removed from Lloyd’s crotch had two medium sized clear plastic baggies.

Inside one of the baggies which had blue stars on one side were three smaller baggies with green alien faces on one side. The second bag had a red side with the inscription, “Stay High”. The contents of these baggies were analyzed and determined to be Cocaine with a total weight of 4.24 g. [ 12 ] Two bags that were located on the floor in the Sally Port at the jail. One of the two bags contained dozens of empty baggies.

Some of the baggies were clear plastic baggies and others had green alien faces on one side along with other baggies with red on one side with the inscription, “Stay High”. [ 13 ] The second bag located in the Sally Port contained four medium size baggies:

(1) The first bag contained three plastic baggies with green alien faces on one side. The contents were analyzed and determined to be Heroin, with a total weight of 1.09 g;

(2) The second bag contained eight small plastic baggies, seven of which had green alien faces on one side. The last baggie was clear. The contents of these baggies were analyzed and determined to be Heroin, with a total weight of 3.10 g;

(3) The third bag had red on one side with the inscription “Stay high”. This bag contained five flaps, the contents of which were analyzed as Heroin with a total weight of 0.70 g;

(4) The fourth bag had red on one side with the inscription “Stay High”. There were eight flaps contained in this bag which were analyzed and determined to be Heroin, with a total weight of 1.50 g. BACKGROUND (

i) Circumstances Surrounding Lloyd’s Arrest and Transportation to the Jail [ 14 ] Constable Christian Olver (“Olver”) was on duty with Constable Ryan Weber (“Weber”) on December 20, 2014. At approximately 11:30 PM, Olver observed Lloyd walking in the 200 block of W. 2 nd Ave. Both Olver and Weber had prior dealings with Lloyd. They were aware of an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Lloyd. [ 15 ] Olver pulled the police car to the side of the road, at which time Lloyd was arrested by Weber and placed in handcuffs. Lloyd was walked to the front of the police car and up to that point was cooperative.

At the front of the police car, Lloyd began to squirm and Weber then heard a metallic noise coming from the feet area of Lloyd. Weber testified that he looked to the ground and observed Lloyd kicking a folding knife under the police car. [ 16 ] Lloyd then began to resist officer directions. He fell to his knees and had to be restrained by both police officers. Once Lloyd was brought back onto his feet, he was searched. As a result of the search, two wallets were located, both with identification not in the name of Lloyd. One of the wallets contained $485. A butane lighter was also found on Lloyd.

The knife that Weber observed being kicked by Lloyd was seized as evidence. [ 17 ] A police transport wagon then arrived at the scene of the arrest. Weber escorted Lloyd into one of the side compartments of the transport wagon. Weber then conducted a more thorough search of Lloyd. Weber noted that Lloyd was wearing two pairs of pants. Between the inner pair of pants and the outer pair of pants he observed a string which was attached to a sunglasses case in Lloyd’s crotch area. Weber removed the sunglasses case and observed the case to contain dozens of small baggies containing a white substance.

The case and contents were seized by Weber as evidence. [ 18 ] Lloyd was then transported by Constable Saman Honarmand (“Honarmand”) to the jail. Prior to transporting Lloyd to the jail Honarmand testified that the compartment containing Lloyd was clean and empty prior to Lloyd’s transport. When they arrived at the jail Sally Port, Lloyd was removed from the transport wagon. Honarmand observed a small knife and a scale on the bench of the compartment that had contained Lloyd. The knife and the scale were seized as evidence. [ 19 ] At the jail, Lloyd was searched by Special Constable Michael Cavezza (“Cavezza”).

Cavezza located various baggies containing suspected illicit drugs. The continuity and analysis of those items seized form part of the Admissions, referenced in this judgment. [ 20 ] Special Constable Thomas Klco (“Klco”) was a jail guard at the Vancouver police station. Klco testified that when he came on duty at 7:00 AM on December 21, 2014, he located, in the Sally Port area on the floor under a table next to the north end Sally Port search station, two baggies of suspected illicit drugs.

The two baggies were seized and the continuity and analysis of the contents form part of the Admissions, referenced in this judgment. [ 21 ] Klco testified that the contents of the two baggies were very unusual in relation to the green alien faces observed on the small baggies along with the baggies that were red on one side with the inscription, “Stay High”.

In cross-examination Klco testified that in his experience the green alien heads were unique. [ 22 ] Klco testified that only two to three individuals, including Lloyd, had been searched at the Sally Port the evening of December 20, 2014. [ 23 ] Klco viewed CCTV footage of the Sally Port area at the time Lloyd was removed from the police transport wagon and then positioned face forward at a location immediately adjacent to the north end table of the Sally Port.

The CCTV footage was burned to disk and marked as an exhibit. [ 24 ] Klco observed that Cavezza was the only person interacting with Lloyd at the north end Sally Port search station. At one point, Cavezza turned his back to Lloyd and stepped several feet away from him. Klco observed that Lloyd could be seen shaking his left foot

in a brief kicking motion. Cavezza then turned back to Lloyd to continue with the booking process before Lloyd was moved to the pre- holding cell. [ 25 ] Klco testified that no other individual was searched at that location after Lloyd. Klco observed that after Lloyd was moved to a holding cell, a police car could be seen entering the Sally Port area with headlights deployed. It was Klco’s opinion that the lights of the police vehicle briefly illuminated an object under the north end table of the Sally Port.

It was Klco’s opinion that the object that was illuminated were the two baggies of the suspected illicit drugs with the unique logos that he located the following morning. [ 26 ] Klco also reviewed the CCTV footage of the pre-holding cell where Lloyd was transferred from the Sally Port. The CCTV footage was also burned to disk and marked as an exhibit. Klco related his observations from his review of that footage.

Klco observed that at 12:35 AM, Lloyd manipulated the waistband area of his pants and that an item fell to the floor. [ 27 ] At 12:37 AM, another individual could be observed to enter the pre-holding cell. It was Klco’s opinion that there was an exchange of words between Lloyd and this individual.

The individual then could be observed picking an item up from the floor and securing that item on his person. (ii) Opinion Evidence [ 28 ] Detective Constable Troy Griffiths (“Griffiths”) was qualified by the court as an expert on of the use, price, packaging, and distribution of Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal meth in Vancouver in 2014. [ 29 ] Griffiths testified that rock Cocaine was predominately smoked through the use of a crack pipe while powder Cocaine would be ingested through the nose or by injection.

Depending on the level of addiction, a daily user of Cocaine would ingest a point or a 10 th of 1 g for a casual or low-level addict and upwards to 2½ g per day for a heavy addict. [ 30 ] Griffiths testified that Heroin was primarily injected but it could also be ingested through smoking by the use of tinfoil or some form of a pipe. Depending on the level of addiction, the amount ingested by an addict on a daily basis would vary.

At the high end of an addiction the user may ingest up to 1 g per day. [ 31 ] Griffiths testified that Crystal meth is primarily smoked by an addict but it could also be ingested through the nose. Generally, Crystal meth was ingested through the use of a meth pipe which was different from a crack pipe in their configuration. Depending on the level of addiction, the amount ingested by an addict on a daily basis would vary.

At the high end of an addiction the user may ingest up to a gram and a half per day. [ 32 ] In the following exchange in direct examination, Griffiths was asked what one would typically find on someone who was a heavy user or addict of Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal meth: Q And you've testified to the high end use of someone who's a heavy addict or user of one of these substances. In that context, what would you typically expect to find on someone who's a heavy user or addict? A It depends.

For a heavy user, if they have the availability of funds, Your Honour, then I would suspect to find a significant amount on them in a bulk amount or by -- they purchase a large amount, again depending on availability of funds and their certain level of addiction, but they will buy a larger amount for a decreased price, so I'd expect to find, yeah, a larger bulk amount on them, depending on what they could afford.

Q And similarly, not speaking of the drugs themselves, but what other items would you typically expect to find on someone who's a heavy user of one of these drugs and in your testimony whose every waking desire is to seek out the drug? What would you expect? A I would expect to find paraphernalia to use the drugs, Your Honour. So for rock Cocaine I'd expect to find a crack pipe and a lighter. For heroin I'd expect to find syringes, potentially some water, caps, or potentially small pieces of tinfoil or something to use to smoke it if they are -- if they do desire to smoke the heroin.

And for methamphetamine I'd expect to find a meth pipe in their possession, Your Honour. (Transcript dated May 6, 2015, Page 6, Lines 39-47; Page 7, lines 1- 20) [ 33 ] Griffiths testified that in 2014, rock Cocaine could be either packaged or unpackaged for retail street sale, depending on the size of the pieces being sold. Powder Cocaine was generally packaged in plastic wrap and tied off in a knot or some other implement.

Generally, powder Cocaine was sold in “plastic wrap balls”. [ 34 ] At the street level the most typical weight of rock Cocaine or powder Cocaine was a 10 th of a gram or what was described as a “point”. The level increased to quarter grams, half grams, grams, half “eight balls” which was 1.75 g and upwards. [ 35 ] In relation to price, at the street level, a point would sell for $10. A double point for $20. An ounce for as much as $1,500 to $1,600.

While there may be some fluctuation in price depending on the history between the drug trafficker and the user which may result in a slight discount, the price otherwise was stable. [ 36 ] Griffiths testified that in relation to Heroin, it was most commonly sold at the street level and in paper flaps. Heroin could be packaged in plastic and tied off at the end. Larger amounts of Heroin would generally be sold in plastic baggies.

[ 37 ] Another form of Heroin sold in the Downtown Eastside was described as pebble Heroin which could be crushed down and then smoked or injected. Typically this type of Heroin was packaged in plastic sandwich baggies and for larger amounts in Ziploc baggies. [ 38 ] At the street level the typical size of Heroin that was packaged for sale was similar to Cocaine. The one exception was that at the very low end one of the common sizes sold was a half-point or 0.05 g.

In relation to the price of Heroin for sale at the street level, it generally was double the price of Cocaine. [ 39 ] Griffiths testified that Crystal meth was primarily packaged in small plastic baggies and larger Ziploc baggies, depending on the size of the product. The typical amount that was offered for sale at the street level was a 10 th of a gram or what was described as a “point”. [ 40 ] In terms of pricing, Crystal meth was similar to that of Cocaine. However, as the amount being purchased increased in size the value would drop significantly.

Depending on the quality, an ounce of Crystal meth would generally be purchased for approximately $900. [ 41 ] In the following exchange in direct examination, Griffiths explained the typical buying pattern of a heavy user: Q And from your experience here in the Downtown Eastside and as an expert, have you been able to observe a typical buying pattern of these drugs if a user or heavy addict will stockpile or buy enough for immediate use? A It generally depends on two things, Your Honour. It depends, first of all, on level of addiction as to the buying pattern. Secondly, it depends on availability of funds.

If -- so for -- on the extreme, if it's a heavy addict and the availability of funds aren't in question, they'll purchase a larger amount of drugs in a bulk form, being that they receive that economy of scale discount. So it's much cheaper to buy a half-ounce of whether it's Cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, than buying numerous smaller pieces or smaller-sized amounts individually. (Transcript dated May 6, 2015, Page 10, Lines 20 - 36) [ 42 ] The heavy user was “fuelled by his or her addiction” and accordingly would try to maximize the amount of drugs they could purchase with funds that they had available.

A heavy user with unlimited funds would endeavour to purchase drugs in bulk, while a heavy user with limited funds would purchase what they could with those available funds. [ 43 ] In the following exchange, the Court asked Griffiths what he meant by “bulk”: THE COURT: When you say "bulk", what do you mean by bulk?

A I mean by bulk, I mean, Your Honour, they will seek out a trafficker or generally heavy addicts have established traffickers that they purchase from, whereby they, rather than going down potentially to, say, Main and Hastings and buying a tenth of a gram at a time and numerous times, they will contact their trafficker and they will buy one baggie containing a quarter ounce, a half-ounce, an ounce of the drug they're seeking, rather than calling their trafficker and receiving 50 or a hundred flaps or smaller dime baggies of the drugs.

Essentially, anybody that can supply larger amounts of drugs will do so, rather than giving -- or selling, sorry, pre-packaged smaller amounts. (Transcript dated May 6, 2015, Page 11, Lines 33-47; Page 12, Lines 1-2) [ 44 ] Griffiths testified that there were two reasons why it was not common for a dealer to sell larger amounts of drugs in small pre- packaged amounts. First, if a trafficker could sell a larger amount in bulk, he would do so rather than going through the tedious process of breaking the amounts down into smaller pre-packaged amounts for street level sale.

Second, addicts were extremely wary and were well aware that if they purchased a large amount of drugs in small pre-packaged pieces that would be indicative of drug trafficking rather than possession of drugs for personal use. [ 45 ] Griffiths described the dynamic of drug trafficking in the Downtown Eastside as a spectrum of different level traffickers ranging from the low level street trafficker up to the trafficking boss, all engaged in a distribution network.

However, the most typical trafficker in the Downtown Eastside was described as a street-level drug trafficker, who could be expected to carry numerous size pieces of either one or multiple drugs. The trafficking enterprise was essentially described as a “small retail store”. [ 46 ] In the Downtown Eastside, the easiest way for a street-level trafficker to move the product was in smaller amounts which allowed for versatility.

It was also Griffith’s experience that street-level traffickers would have different packaged sizes of one or more drugs to accommodate the anticipated requests from buyers. [ 47 ] Griffiths testified that drug trafficking was inherently dangerous. To reduce the risk, drug traffickers generally avoided carrying a large quantity of drugs, though at times, a trafficker may carry a stash of drugs to facilitate drug transactions depending on the trafficker’s client or customer base. [ 48 ] Griffiths testified that a drug trafficker would typically carry a cell phone, scales and packaging material.

Due to the inherent dangers in engaging in drug trafficking, it was not uncommon for traffickers to carry a variety of weapons, including knives. [ 49 ] The Crown posed a hypothetical scenario to Griffiths, incorporating the admissions contained in this judgment along with the

observations made by the police witnesses. [ 50 ] It was Griffith’s opinion that the amount of illicit drugs found on the hypothetical arrestee (“the arrestee”) was a large amount. In particular, it was significant that the Crystal meth and the Heroin were broken down into various sizes, different baggies, and found on different locations of the arrestee’s clothing, which would not be consistent with personal use but rather consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking. [ 51 ] It was Griffith’s opinion that the value of the illicit drugs posed in the Crown hypothetical scenario was substantial.

The 7.26 g of Heroin alone was essentially a quarter ounce with an approximate value of $1,000. The value of the drugs found on the arrestee in various locations would sell at retail for approximately $4,000. [ 52 ] In addition, Griffiths found it significant that drugs were located in a sunglasses container tied off down the front of the interior of the arrestee’s pants.

It was Griffith’s opinion that addicts would hide drugs in this manner to avoid detection if they were stopped or searched by the police. [ 53 ] Equally significant was the packaging of the various illicit drugs found on the arrestee and in the Sally Port. It was Griffith’s opinion that the packaging was consistent with trafficking rather than personal use. [ 54 ] In Griffith’s opinion, the $485 found on the arrestee was a large amount but not particularly significant. However, the presence of the scale along with the lack of drug use paraphernalia was significant.

Those two circumstances were consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking rather than personal use. [ 55 ] It was Griffith’s opinion that the empty baggies and drugs located in the Sally Port were consistent with trafficking rather than personal use. The amount and the value of the drugs were significant. The empty baggies would be used by a drug trafficker to break down drugs into a smaller amount for sale, especially so if he was also in possession of a scale.

Griffith was of the opinion that the items seized in the Sally Port were consistent with a “drug packaging kit”. [ 56 ] It was Griffith’s further opinion that the totality of the illicit drugs was beyond what he would expect an addict to have in his possession for personal use. It was his further experience that addicts generally do not use two stimulants, especially heavy addicts. They would have a preference as to whether they use Cocaine or Crystal meth. [ 57 ] In his experience in the Downtown Eastside, Griffiths had never met a user addicted to Heroin, Cocaine, and Crystal meth.

Some users would use a stimulant and a depressant, but not a combination of Heroin, Cocaine, and Crystal meth. [ 58 ] Griffiths was of the opinion that the total weight of all of the drugs was large and the amount was larger than what he normally had experienced being in possession of a heavy user or an addict.

It was the conclusion of Griffiths that the amount of Heroin, Cocaine, and Crystal meth in the possession of the arrestee was consistent of possession for the purpose of trafficking and not for personal use. [ 59 ] Griffiths agreed with Lloyd that the logos located on the baggies were significant to the extent that the empty baggies and the packaged baggies had the same logos.

However, Griffiths was unable to say how common the green alien logo was in the Downtown Eastside in December 2014. [ 60 ] Griffiths further agreed that there was nothing stopping the trafficker from selling his entire inventory to a user pre-packaged.

However, the purchaser would have to pay a premium price to purchase the inventory as the trafficker would not want to sell the pre- packaged inventory at a bulk rate as he would be losing out on his profit margin. [ 61 ] In the following exchange, it was put to Griffiths by Lloyd that it was plausible for a user well known to the police to buy a large pre-packaged inventory for the purpose of taking that inventory outside of the Downtown Eastside: Q All right.

Now, so if someone was well-known to the police and wanted to have a large amount of drugs for their personal use, wanted to avoid coming into the Downtown Eastside where they know police presence is rather high, wouldn't it -- they -- it would be quite likely, I respectfully suggest to you, sir, that they could buy large quantities packaged small just so they could take it out of the Downtown Eastside and use it? A In my experience they wouldn't, no, Your Honour. They would purchase at a greater amount.

Addicts, especially heavy addicts, Your Honour, while they're driven by their addiction, they're also extremely price-savvy, in that they are -- they will not overpay for drugs. It's the one thing that they are extremely smart and conscious about is not overpaying for drugs, because simply that addiction will result in a point where they will run out of drugs and need to buy more drugs, thereby costing them money. So -- and depending on their availability of funds, they don't want to waste money overpaying for drugs. So it can be done.

In my experience, it doesn't happen in that they don't want to waste their money. (Transcript dated May 6, 2015, Page 37, Lines 12 - 35) [ 62 ] Griffiths disagreed with Lloyd’s suggestion that addicts would not make rational choices with respect to the purchase of drugs.

To the contrary, Griffiths was of the opinion that addicts were highly rational about their drug purchases and they would not throw away their money by overpaying for drugs. [ 63 ] Griffiths agreed with Lloyd that individuals who were not drug traffickers in the Downtown Eastside could be carrying knives and other weapons as the Downtown Eastside was a dangerous place. [ 64 ] Griffiths agreed with Lloyd that an addict could carry scales but in his experience that was uncommon.

In particular, in reference to a heavy addict, Griffiths was of the opinion that there was no need for the heavy addict to carry scales as he/she would be

able to tell the size of drugs by sight. [ 65 ] Lloyd asked Griffiths if there were any circumstances that would support a conclusion that the total amount of illicit drugs located in this case could be for personal use. In response, Griffiths had this to say: A Yes. I don't believe that in those totals alone, Your Honour, purchased like that, it would be for personal use. No. Those are large amounts. Essentially, there's no discounted price if you buy one ounce versus two ounce. Generally, ounces be sold at ounce levels.

It's once you bump up to the half-kilo or kilo level that you'll receive an economy of scale. So buying 50 grams of meth to use over the course of a month and a half, two months, in my experience isn't done by an addict. The heroin would last, if the heroin was just being used on its own, the ballpark of better part of two-thirds of a month. And again, it would be bought in more of an amount that's used at the bulk amount.

So in my opinion, there's no reason to buy that much meth and that much heroin. (Transcript dated May 6, 2015, Page 41, Lines 18 - 33) (iii) Lloyd’s Evidence [ 66 ] Lloyd testified that he was living at a motel on Kingsway in Vancouver in December 2014. At that time, he was working part- time in construction and also doing roofing jobs. [ 67 ] In relation to drug use, he testified that he was using Heroin and Crystal meth and would use crack Cocaine when he got too high on the Heroin and the Crystal meth to “even” himself out.

As far as quantity was concerned, he testified that he was using 2 to 4 g of Heroin a day along with 5 to 6 g of Crystal meth per day and on a bad day even 7 g. In relation to crack Cocaine, he could easily smoke 5 g on a weekend. [ 68 ] Lloyd testified that on December 20, 2014, he got up at approximately 5:30 AM to get ready for work. He did a little bit of Heroin and Crystal meth before heading out to a construction site located somewhere between Vancouver and Burnaby, though he could not recall the exact location.

He recalled that it was a residential construction job and that he was helping a co-worker with framing until he finished at around 5:00 PM. [ 69 ] Lloyd returned to the motel where he met up with his employer who paid him $1750 cash. Lloyd then spoke to a couple of friends by telephone and they agreed to meet for dinner at a local White Spot at 8:30 PM. Lloyd met up with his two friends at the White Spot and after dinner he left the White Spot at around 9:15 PM. [ 70 ] It was Lloyd’s original plan to go downtown for dinner and also get some drugs after dinner.

After dinner, Lloyd contacted his regular drug dealer, who told him it would take upwards of four hours before he would be able to hook up with Lloyd. Lloyd was not prepared to wait the four hours so made his way back to the Canada Line station at Olympic Village where he planned to catch a bus back to his motel. [ 71 ] When he got to the Olympic Village station, he ran into a fellow called Ryan who he knew from the Downtown Eastside. Lloyd asked Ryan if he could buy some drugs from him. The two began to talk and they agreed that Lloyd could buy his inventory for $1,700.

Lloyd recalled the breakdown being $800 for Heroin, $600 for Crystal meth, and $300 for rock Cocaine. Lloyd could not recall the exact breakdown as he recalled that he was “kind of high that night”. [ 72 ] Lloyd happened to be carrying his sunglasses case so he removed the sunglasses and placed the drugs in the sunglasses case. He then tied them off down his shorts inside his outside trousers. Lloyd recalled that this transaction took place at about 10:45 PM. [ 73 ] Lloyd testified that he was on the phone talking to his father while heading towards the bus stop when he was arrested by Olver and Weber.

During the course of the arrest he recalled being walked over to the police vehicle when he heard one of the two police officers say something along the lines that he saw something on the ground. Lloyd recalled kicking something with his foot but denied any knowledge of the knife that was located by Weber. [ 74 ] In relation to the wallet that was located by the police containing identification document not in the name of Lloyd, he testified that while he was talking to his father, he saw a wallet lying on the ground. Without even thinking, Lloyd picked the wallet up and put it in his pocket.

In relation to the $485, he recalled that it was money leftover from a $580 Liberty Tax cheque that he had cashed. [ 75 ] Lloyd testified that when he was being transported by the police wagon to the police station, he took the scale and the knife he had in his possession and put those items on the bench seat of the wagon.

He stated that it was a “sheer reaction” and he put the knife and the scale on the bench seat as he did not want anything to go bad between himself and the police. [ 76 ] Lloyd needed the knife for personal safety reasons since he was going downtown to buy drugs and he was going to use the scale to weigh the drugs so he would not get “ripped off”. He did not use the scale to weigh any of the drugs he purchased from Ryan because their transaction was done in a public place and the drugs were split up.

He “eyeballed” the amount of drugs to confirm that he had a good deal. [ 77 ] Lloyd testified that when he was in the Sally Port at the jail, his testicles became uncomfortable when he was standing by the north end table. To make himself more comfortable he shook his leg to release the pressure on his testicles. He denied shaking his leg to get rid of any drugs.

Lloyd denied any knowledge of the drugs located in the Sally Port. [ 78 ] In the pre-holding cell he recalled having some cigarettes in his back pocket which he shook out of his pocket and they were picked up by a fellow inmate. [ 79 ] Lloyd testified that the baggies with the green alien faces and other markings were very common and could be purchased in any local dispensary. Lloyd denied having any of the drugs in his possession for trafficking and that it was “most likely” he was going to do the drugs in his motel room where he had his drug paraphernalia.

[ 80 ] In cross-examination Lloyd described himself as a heavy user of drugs. On an average day in December 2014, he was using 2 to 4 g of Heroin per day along with 5 to 6 g of Crystal meth. To even out the effects of Heroin and Crystal meth, on a weekend he might smoke up to 5 g of crack Cocaine. [ 81 ] While being a heavy user, Lloyd described the impact of this drug use as making him feel “slightly drowsy from the down but I feel awake and active from the speed. I spend a lot of time outside”. [ 82 ] Notwithstanding the heavy use of drugs Lloyd felt that it was safe for him to work on a construction site.

However, as he thought about it in the witness stand, he went on to tell the court that “it probably was not a good idea. Or I know it was not a good idea”. [ 83 ] Lloyd testified that it was his plan to store the drugs he bought from Ryan in a duffel bag and leave the duffel bag in the motel suite which he shared with two roommates. Lloyd slept on the couch in the living room while his two roommates had separate beds in the single bedroom of the suite. [ 84 ] Though agreeing that the amount of drugs was valuable, Lloyd was not particularly concerned over storing the drugs in the duffel bag in the motel suite.

Security for the drugs was something that he “never really thought about”. [ 85 ] Lloyd agreed that he normally bought smaller amounts of drugs but on this occasion he bought the larger amount as he was trying to get himself through to the next paycheque and did not want to jeopardize his job. Lloyd did not explain how or why his job would be in jeopardy. [ 86 ] Prior to December 20, 2014, Lloyd was holding down a part-time roofing job before taking up residence at the motel. He had been couch surfing while earning small amounts of money which he used to purchase drugs to feed his drug habit.

In relation to those purchases, he usually used a dial-a-dope trafficker or a known dealer in the Downtown Eastside. [ 87 ] Lloyd was asked to explain why he would spend his entire pay on purchasing Ryan’s inventory in the following exchange: Q So why risk it? Why buy $1,700, your entire pay cheque at once? Why not buy $500 at a time, go back the next day, go back in a week? A I -- I don't want to spend the time going back and forth. Every time I go into the eastside to buy drugs it's -- puts my job my risk, it puts me at risk. As you say, it can be dangerous I guess. Or not I guess, it is. I'm sorry about that.

THE COURT: That's okay. A Ah, when the opportunity arised I kind of jumped for it. MS. SATTARZADEH: Q If you're going to buy that large amount of drugs why not get the dial-a-doper to deliver it to you? A Ah, I was going to pick up a large amount. He said it would be four hours or more. And then I would have to go right back down to the eastside.

When the opportunity arised and I ran into a buddy, as I said, I -- I jumped for it. (Transcript dated July 16, 2015, Page 25, Lines 11 - 29) [ 88 ] Though Lloyd had only dealt with Ryan once or twice in the past, he was unable to explain why Ryan was giving him such a good deal on the drugs. When it was suggested to Lloyd by the Crown that the deal was too good to be true, Lloyd responded as follows: A No. I don't know. I was thinking a good deal. For as far as I know he could have fucked, excuse my language, he could have robbed someone for it and just trying to get rid of it quick. It's a cheap deal.

To a drug addict -- I don't know another drug addict that would turn down a deal like that. THE COURT: Did you ask him why are you giving me such a good deal? 'Cause your experience in buying drugs, obviously as an addict, did it cross your mind, say, oh, good deal, how come I'm getting such a good deal? A Well, I -- it did but I wasn't really going to talk him out of doing it. (Transcript dated July 16, 2015, Page 26, Lines 35 - 47, Page 27, Line 1) [ 89 ] In relation to the transaction with Ryan, Lloyd recalled that it took place behind the Olympic Village station where Lloyd took a look at Ryan’s inventory.

He recalled that Ryan was looking to sell his inventory for $2,200-$2,400. [ 90 ] Lloyd agreed that he would have had approximately $2,200 on his person when he was negotiating with Ryan. However, he was not prepared to spend all of his money on the drugs as he “needed food and stuff for the week”. [ 91 ] While agreeing that he could have found a safer place than the Olympic Village station to complete the transaction with Ryan, Lloyd felt at the time that the drugs looked like they were of a high enough quality that he could take the risk and do the transaction with Ryan.

Lloyd testified that at the time he was high and was not thinking. The total time for the transaction to complete was 10 minutes. [ 92 ] Lloyd agreed that Ryan went to a considerable effort to package all of the drugs in various baggies and flaps. The trouble Ryan

went to in packaging the drugs did not enter into the negotiations between Ryan and Lloyd. Lloyd described the transaction as one in which Ryan had the drugs and Lloyd had the cash and the only question was how much Lloyd would pay for Ryan’s inventory. [ 93 ] Lloyd was extensively cross-examined on how he was able to function at his construction job using various power tools when he was such a heavy user of drugs. Lloyd agreed that his drug use may have affected him at work, but that work was essentially second nature for him.

He conceded that he was lucky to still have his fingers. [ 94 ] In the following exchange, Lloyd was asked to explain how the $485 that was found by Weber came to be in the wallet which contained identification document not in his name: Q Okay. So you didn't even -- you didn't even know who those people are, you didn't -- you just found the wallet and you were going to deal with it later? A Yeah. Q So the problem here is that the $485 was also found in that wallet? A It was found in my money clip. They pulled out the wallet and my money clip at the same time. Q Okay.

That was not their evidence, and they were not asked about any money clip. So do you think you made a mistake or do you think the police made a mistake? A No, I don't think I made a mistake. I know I had my money in a money clip.

Or I was pretty sure I had my money in a money clip, unless when I stuck the wallet in my pocket the wallet opened on each side of the money or something like that. (Transcript dated July 16, 2015, Page 47, Lines 25 - 42) [ 95 ] Lloyd was also asked to explain in the following exchange how he came into possession of a second wallet that the police found on him in which there was identification document in the name of Danielle Demaro: Q So in one of the wallets you had some ID documents that weren't yours? A I didn't realize I had ID documents that weren't mine. Q Mr.

Lloyd, how's it possible that you don't know what you have in your wallet? A I -- right now I'm sitting here and trying to think and -- THE COURT: It's some time ago, do you recall or -- I don't want you to guess. Do you recall how that may have come to be? A I -- I don't know. THE COURT: You don't know, okay.

A Well, I can keep thinking about it and if it comes up I -- (Transcript dated July 16, 2015, Page 48, Lines 15 - 29) [ 96 ] In the following exchange, it was suggested to Lloyd that it would be much safer for him to take less cash to purchase drugs rather than taking all of his cash along with a knife: Q So wouldn't you have been safer -- rather than putting a knife in your pocket isn't it safer to take less cash and buy less drugs? A Probably. I -- I wasn't thinking about it at the time.

I was thinking about buying an amount that would supply me till my next payday. (Transcript dated July 16, Page 49, Lines 32 - 37) [ 97 ] Lloyd agreed that at the time of his arrest, he was wearing a pair of jeans over top of a pair of shorts which were over top of the pair of boxer underwear. He explained that when he got the call to go to dinner that he “kind of got all my stuff together real quick and threw on the pants.

So it ended up throwing them over top”. [ 98 ] In the following exchange, Lloyd was asked to explain how some of the drugs ended up in the sunglasses case tied off down the inside of his jeans and two other baggies with drugs that were located in his crotch area which he could have easily placed in the sunglasses case with the other drugs: Q -- I didn't get that full explanation. Why did you -- why did you put it in your crotch?

A Because I was walking back out onto 2nd Street and I didn't want to reach in, pull out a big bag of drugs and put in there, so I just reached down and stuck them in a little pocket that I had there on the inside of the shorts.

(Transcript dated July 16, 2015, Page 52, Lines 16 - 22) [ 99 ] Lloyd was also asked to explain why he decided to put the knife and scale on the bench of the police wagon when he was being transported to the jail in the following exchange: Q And when did it occur to you that, oh, yeah, I have a knife and a scale on me as well? A Ah, as we drove to the cop station. I think we made one stop, picked up two people. I, ah -- yeah, I heard one of them -- that they put in the back I guess, they must not have searched him.

He got onto his cell phone and I don't know, it clicked in my head that I had this knife and scale on me and I pulled them out and put them on the seat next to me. Q And I'm going to ask you if you can remember, why did you decide to do that rather than tell the wagon driver once he pulled you out, by the way, officer, I have this knife and my scale on me, you should know that? Why did you take it out and put it on the seat next to you? A I don't know. I wasn't really thinking.

I was -- (Transcript dated July 16, 2015, page 55, Lines 42-47 and Page 56, Lines 1-11) POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 100 ] Lloyd submitted that the evidence in this case was principally circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence of actual trafficking. Lloyd submitted that he gave his evidence in a forthright and honest manner and there was nothing in his cross- examination that would undermine his credibility. [ 101 ] Lloyd submitted that it was not beyond the realm of possibility that he purchased all of the drugs found on him for personal use and not for trafficking.

It was submitted that Lloyd was in possession of a small amount of tinfoil and a butane lighter which would be items used for the personal use of drugs. [ 102 ] Lloyd submitted that Griffiths agreed in cross-examination that both drug traffickers and drug users could be in possession of both the scales and knives in the Downtown Eastside. [ 103 ] Lloyd submitted that his testimony should be accepted that he purchased Ryan’s drug inventory for personal use.

In the alternative, if the Court did not accept the above explanation, Lloyd submitted that his testimony would establish a reasonable doubt that he had the drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. [ 104 ] Lloyd submitted that he ought to be found guilty of possession simpliciter of Heroin, Cocaine and Crystal meth. [ 105 ] The Crown submitted that the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from all of the evidence was that Lloyd had the drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. [ 106 ] The Crown submitted that Griffith’s opinion evidence would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Lloyd had the Heroin, Cocaine, and Crystal meth in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, which opinion took into account the following factors: (1) the quantity of the drugs was large with an approximate value of $4,000; (2) the drugs were uniquely packaged; (3) absence of paraphernalia consistent with personal use; (4) presence of knives to protect Lloyd’s stash; (5) the knife and the scale found in the police transport wagon; (6) the empty baggies capable of being loaded up with drugs; and (7) the money found in one of the two wallets. [ 107 ] The Crown submitted that Lloyd lacked credibility in relation to key elements in his testimony, including: (1) vague evidence about where he lived on a day by day basis and who paid for his rent; (2) his purported drug use while at the same time holding down a job in which he used tools including a table saw and a band saw lacked credibility; (3) the quantity of the drugs was beyond what a heavy addict or user would possess;

(4) convenient explanations as to how he happened to find the wallet and how he just happened to kick a knife that was on the groundwhen he was being arrested; (5) it did not make sense that Lloyd bought Ryan’s inventory prepackaged in small amounts at a price well below market value; (6) the drugs were separated into the sunglasses case and into pockets of Lloyd which did not make sense.

Why would he not put all ofthe drugs into the glass case if they were for personal use; (7) why would he possess a scale but never bothered to weigh Ryan’s inventory, rather he elected to “eyeball” the inventory to ensure hehad a good deal; (8) he essentially provided no explanation how the $485 ended up end in the wallet which contained identification unrelated to Lloyd. [108] The Crown submitted that common sense would establish that there were no other possible inferences that could be drawn fromall of the evidence other than the drugs were in Lloyd’s possession for the purpose of trafficking.

APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK [109] The Crown may prove the essential elements of possession for the purpose of trafficking through direct or circumstantialevidence, or a combination of both. Where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonabledoubt that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts: See R. v. Vu (T.T.), 2004 BCCA 381 atparagraph 31. [110] In considering whether the circumstantial evidence supports an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court must notexamine each individual circumstance in isolation.

Rather, the proper approach is to consider whether all of the evidence, taken together,establishes guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion: See R. v. Aylward (1993), 36 B.C.C.A. 14 at paragraphs 5 - 7. [111] As Lloyd testified in his defence, I am required to apply the approach in assessing his credibility as set out in R. v. W.(D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742 at paragraph 28 which reads as follows: Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge.

A trialjudge might well [page758] instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines: • First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. • Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. • Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidencewhich you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

If that formula were followed, the oft repeated error which appears in the recharge in this case would be avoided. The requirement thatthe Crown prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is fundamental in our system of criminal law.

Every effort should bemade to avoid mistakes in charging the jury on this basic principle. [112] In approaching the assessment of the reliability and the credibility of Lloyd’s evidence, Peter McWilliams in his authoritativetextbook, McWilliams Canadian Evidence, 4th series, at page 27:2 provides a useful guide to this inquiry: In other words, are we confident that the witness is trying to be truthful and not deceiving us. Having satisfied ourselves of this, we moveon to the second inquiry. Is the factual content of the witness’ evidence trustworthy or reliable?

For example, are we confident that thewitness has accurately recalled or observed whatever he or she is testifying about? Once we are satisfied that the witness is trying to betruthful and that his or her account is reliable, we can safely conclude the evidence is credible. [113] In this case, Griffiths was properly qualified as an expert on the use, price, packaging, and distribution of Cocaine, Heroin, andCrystal meth in Vancouver in 2014.

The relevance and reliability of his opinion evidence in relation to facts in issue or inferences thatmay be drawn from the evidence presented must be determined by the court. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

(

i) Circumstances Surrounding Lloyd’s Arrest and Transport to the Police Station [ 114 ] Lloyd testified that he left the White Spot restaurant at approximately 9:15 PM. He recalled proceeding to the Olympic Village station when he coincidentally came across his friend Ryan. It was at that point over a 10 minute span that he purchased Ryan’s entire drug inventory. He recalled the transaction taking place at 10:45 PM.

Lloyd was arrested by Weber and Olver at approximately 11:30 PM. [ 115 ] Lloyd testified that after the transaction was completed with Ryan that he decided to walk two blocks down from the Olympic Village Station to catch a bus back to his motel. While he was walking to the bus stop, he recalled having two cigarettes before he was stopped by Weber and Olver. [ 116 ] It was difficult to reconcile Lloyd’s timeline of events.

I do not accept Lloyd’s evidence that it took him an hour and a half to get to the Olympic Village Station by the Canada Line train where he met Ryan after leaving the White Spot. [ 117 ] After completing the transaction, it did not make sense that Lloyd would hang around a highly public area for 45 minutes with such a large amount of illicit drugs. Lloyd would appear to be alive to the inherent dangers associated with possessing illicit drugs as he testified that he carried a knife for his protection.

With those dangers in mind, common sense would dictate that Lloyd would want to get back to the motel as soon as possible. This he did not do. [ 118 ] Lloyd testified that during the course of the arrest, he coincidently kicked a knife that happened to be on the ground beside the police car after he stumbled. I accept Weber’s evidence that at the time he walked Lloyd to the front end of the police car, Lloyd began to squirm, at which point Weber heard a metallic noise. When Weber looked down, he saw a folding knife at the feet of Lloyd.

Lloyd then kicked the knife under the police car. [ 119 ] I reject Lloyd’s evidence that the knife located by Weber just happened to be on the ground at his feet and he came into contact with the knife when he stumbled. I find that Lloyd was in possession of two knives at the time of his arrest, one of which he managed to drop to the ground. He then kicked that knife under the police car to avoid that knife from being detected. [ 120 ] Lloyd testified that just prior to being arrested, he saw a wallet lying on the ground and that without even thinking he picked it up and put it in his pocket.

He recalled he still had $485 that was on a money clip in his pocket from the Liberty Tax cheque that he had cashed. [ 121 ] Weber testified that after Lloyd’s arrest, he conducted a search of Lloyd. As a result of that search, he located two wallets. Both wallets had identification documents not associated to Lloyd. One of the wallets contained $485.

In cross-examination Lloyd did not think that he had made a mistake about the location of the $485 being on a money clip unless, as he put it, “when I stuck the wallet in my pocket the wallet open on each side of the money or something like that”. [ 122 ] I accept Weber’s evidence that he located the $485 in one of the two wallets found on Lloyd.

I reject Lloyd’s explanation with respect to the $485 somehow ending up in the wallet when he placed that wallet in his pocket. [ 123 ] In relation to the second wallet located by Weber with identification document in the name of Danielle Demaro, Lloyd was unable to provide any explanation whatsoever how he had identification documents that were not his. His only explanation was that he would keep “thinking about it”: See paragraph 95 of this judgment. [ 124 ] Lloyd testified that he took a scale downtown to weigh drugs that he planned to purchase.

After he was arrested and was being transported to the police station, he took the scale and the second knife and left them on the bench seat of the police wagon, out of a “sheer reaction” as he did not want anything to go bad between himself and the police. [ 125 ] I do not find Lloyd’s evidence on this point to be reliable. I find that Lloyd knew that when he arrived at the Police Station, he would have been searched and the knife and the scale would have been located.

By leaving the knife and the scale on the bench seat, I infer that it was Lloyd’s intention to physically distance himself from the scale and the knife. [ 126 ] I accept Griffith’s opinion evidence as reliable and credible that drug traffickers would typically carry scales and that it was uncommon for a user or an addict to carry scales.

I also accept Griffith’s opinion evidence as reliable and credible that drug traffickers would carry various weapons, including “knives”. (ii) Circumstances Surrounding Events at the Sally Port and the Pre-holding Cell [ 127 ] Lloyd denied having any knowledge of the drugs that were located under the table. He admitted that when he was standing in the second Sally Port search station, his testicles were making him uncomfortable so he shook his left leg to release the pressure on his testicles. He denied shaking his leg to get rid of any drugs. [ 128 ] I had the opportunity to review the Sally Port CCTV footage.

I found the CCTV footage to be of good quality. The CCTV footage clearly depicted Lloyd being removed from the police transport wagon by Cavezza and directed to stand facing the wall of the second of two marked rectangular search stations. That search station had a table to the right. [ 129 ] The Sally Port CCTV footage had a timing clock, which broke down events by the second. At 31:31 Cavezza walked 4 to 5 steps away from Lloyd with his back to Lloyd. Lloyd was looking to his left at Cavezza at 31:34. At 31:35 Lloyd was observed shaking his left foot.

Cavezza then turned back to Lloyd to continue with the pre-booking process of Lloyd. [ 130 ] A second arrestee next arrived and was observed being directed to the first of the two marked rectangular search stations. This individual was wearing a jersey with the number 21. It was shortly after the arrival of this individual that Lloyd was transferred to a pre- holding cell.

[ 131 ] The second arrestee was dealt with by jail guards before he was escorted to the same pre-holding cell containing Lloyd. There were no actions by this second individual that would establish that he managed to drop anything to the ground at the first of the two search stations or that he kicked anything on the ground toward the table next to the second search station. [ 132 ] Klco testified that he located two baggies of suspected illicit drugs under the table next to the second Sally Port search station the following morning.

Those baggies contained smaller baggies with green alien faces along with other baggies that were red on one side with the inscription, “Stay High”. Klco testified that the green alien faces were unique. [ 133 ] Klco testified that no other individual was searched at the second Sally Port search station after Lloyd.

Klco testified that he viewed the CCTV footage of the Sally Port and that he observed something being illuminated by the headlights of the police vehicle at the foot of the table that was adjacent to the second Sally Port search station. [ 134 ] The baggies with drugs located on Lloyd also had green alien faces with other baggies that were red with the inscription, “Stay High”. [ 135 ] I accept Klco’s evidence as reliable and credible that no one else after Lloyd was searched in the second Sally Port search station.

I accept the CCTV footage as reliable in establishing that Lloyd shook his left foot at the point that Cavezza had his back turned to Lloyd. I accept the CCTV footage as reliable in establishing that at the point Lloyd shook his left foot, he was looking at the back of Cavezza. [ 136 ] I had the opportunity to review the CCTV footage at the point when a police vehicle entered the Sally Port garage and the headlights of the police vehicle illuminated both of the Sally Port search stations.

As the police vehicle enters the garage, there did appear to be a brief illumination of something under the left side at the ground level of the table located adjacent to the second Sally Port search station. [ 137 ] I accept Griffith’s opinion evidence as reliable and credible that the packaging of the drugs, and the logos, located on Lloyd and the packaging of the drugs, and the logos, located in the Sally Port were consistent.

I accept Griffith’s opinion evidence that the empty baggies that were also located in the Sally Port would be used by a drug trafficker to break down drugs into a smaller amount, especially so if the trafficker was also in possession of a scale. [ 138 ] Drugs were found in various locations on Lloyd. This included in his pockets and inside his pants in the crotch area. It was clear from the CCTV footage from the Sally Port that Lloyd shook his left foot while looking directly at Cavezza’s back.

I reject Lloyd’s evidence that he shook his left leg to relieve pressure on his testicles. [ 139 ] I find that the baggies with the green alien faces and the red baggies with the inscription, “Stay High” located both on Lloyd and in the Sally Port were unique and formed part of the inventory that Lloyd purportedly purchased from Ryan.

I find that the Crown has circumstantially established beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs located in the Sally Port were in possession of Lloyd. [ 140 ] Shortly after Lloyd was escorted to the pre-holding cell, the second arrestee with the number 21 on his jersey was escorted to the pre-holding cell. The CCTV footage of the pre-holding cell appeared to establish that there was some conversation between the two parties. [ 141 ] The CCTV footage established that Lloyd managed to remove something from his back pocket in the pre-holding cell.

After that item was removed it was picked up by the second arrestee. [ 142 ] Lloyd denied that the item he removed was more drugs.

Rather, he testified that he dropped an open pack of cigarettes as he didn’t want them placed in his personal effects where they would stink up his personal effects when they went mouldy. [ 143 ] While I am highly suspicious of the activity that took place in the pre-holding cell between Lloyd and the second arrestee, I am unable to find that, in fact, trafficking activity took place between the two of them. (iii) Lloyd’s Evidence [ 144 ] Lloyd testified that in December 2014, he was a heavy user of drugs.

He was using up to 2 to 4 g of Heroin per day along with 5 to 6 g of Crystal meth per day and on a bad day even 7 g. In relation to crack Cocaine he could easily smoke 5 g on a weekend. [ 145 ] It was Griffith’s opinion that a Heroin user at the high end would use 1 g per day and that Heroin would have depressant effect on the body. It was his further opinion that a Crystal meth user at the high end would use 1½ g per day.

The user of the Crystal meth would experience energy and euphoria. [ 146 ] Lloyd’s testimony relating to his drug use in December 2014 far exceeded Griffith’s opinion in relation to high end users of Heroin and Crystal meth. Lloyd testified in cross-examination that he was even doing “lines at work”. Notwithstanding his heavy use of drugs, Lloyd testified that he could hold down his construction job and even operate tools such as a band saw and a table saw. [ 147 ] I find that it was not plausible that Lloyd could function at the jobsite if he was such a heavy user of drugs.

The amount he testified to using far exceeded Griffith’s opinion in relation to heavy users of Heroin and Crystal meth. [ 148 ] I accept the opinion of Griffith’s as reliable and credible that in his experience in the Downtown Eastside that he had never met a user addicted to a combination of Heroin, Cocaine, and Crystal meth. [ 149 ] I reject Lloyd’s evidence in relation to the amount of drugs that he said he was using in December 2014. I find he has exaggerated his evidence with respect to the amount of drugs he was using. [ 150 ] Lloyd provided few details about his living arrangements at the motel.

Initially in cross-examination, he testified that his

employer paid the rent for the motel room. Later in cross-examination he was not sure if it was his employer who was paying the rent or if it was one of the two employees who were also staying at the motel. [ 151 ] Lloyd provided few details about his construction job. He was not even sure whether or not he was going to be working on December 21, 2014, though he was pretty sure that he would be working. [ 152 ] Lloyd testified in direct examination that he just happened to come across Ryan at the Olympic Village Station where Ryan asked him for a cigarette.

Lloyd asked Ryan if he was working that night and if he could purchase some drugs. The two started talking and an agreement was made on an amount of drugs that Lloyd could buy for $1,700. [ 153 ] Lloyd was getting upwards of $4,000 worth of drugs, mostly pre-packaged, for the price of $1,700 though Ryan had told him that he wanted to sell his inventory for $2,200-$2,400. While Lloyd had gone into the downtown core with $2,200 principally for the purpose of purchasing drugs, he provided no reliable explanation how he managed to work Ryan down to $1,700 for his inventory?

Lloyd provided no details how they arrived at the discounted price? It did not appear to cross Lloyd’s mind to ask Ryan why he was unloading a large and valuable amount of drugs at such a significant discount? [ 154 ] It was Griffith’s opinion that a heavy user of drugs with unlimited funds would endeavour to purchase drugs in bulk while a heavy user with limited funds would purchase what they could with those available funds. Paragraphs 42 through 44 of this judgment detailed Griffith’s opinion respecting the bulk purchase of drugs.

I accept that opinion as reliable and credible. [ 155 ] I do not accept Lloyd’s evidence that he coincidentally came across Ryan and in a 10 minute transaction purchased Ryan’s entire drug inventory for $1,700. I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that it was not common for a dealer to sell larger amounts of drugs in small pre-packaged amounts, as noted at paragraph 44 of this judgment. [ 156 ] I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that the Heroin, Cocaine and Crystal meth found on Lloyd was beyond what he would expect an addict to have in his possession for personal use.

I reject Lloyd’s evidence that he purchased the drugs found on him for personal use. [ 157 ] I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that the heroin located in the Sally Port was beyond what he would expect an addict to have in his possession for personal use. [ 158 ] I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that the total weight of all of the drugs was large and beyond what one would expect to be in the possession of a heavy user or an addict for personal use.

I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that the inventory of the drugs seized in this case was valuable and outside of what a heavy user or addict would have in his possession for personal use. I accept Griffith’s opinion as reliable and credible that the packaging and locations of the drugs seized in this case was consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking and not for personal use. [ 159 ] I reject Lloyd’s testimony that the drugs found on him in various locations were for personal use. I find that he had the two knives on him for the purpose of protecting this stash of drugs.

Likewise, I find that he was in possession of the scale for the purpose of weighing drugs for sale. DISPOSITION [ 160 ] I find that Lloyd cannot be believed when he testified that he was in possession of the Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal meth on December 20, 2014, for his personal use.

Based upon all of the evidence presented at this trial, I am satisfied that the Crown has established Lloyd’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. [ 161 ] Accordingly, I find Lloyd guilty of being in possession of Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal meth on December 20, 2014, for the purpose of trafficking. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge G. Rideout Provincial Court of British Columbia