Accessibility/Mobile Features
Skip Navigation
Skip to Content
Editorial News
Classified Sites

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Supreme Court upholds 2011 B.C. conviction for smuggling cocaine

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the conviction of a British Columbia man who was trying to cross into Canada with 50 kilograms of cocaine hidden in the truck he was driving.

Ajitpal Singh Sekhon was sentenced to 10 years after his 2011 trial.

On appeal, Sekhon argued that he didn't know the cocaine was concealed in the truck and that the court was wrong to have allowed some expert testimony from a police officer.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court says part of the policeman's testimony was inadmissible, but that the rest of the evidence in the case was overwhelming.

Writing for the majority, Justice Michael Moldaver says the inadmissible evidence was a small part of the evidence against Sekhon, while the two dissenting justices called it a major error to have allowed it.

The only issue at trial was whether Sekhon knew about the cocaine. He testified that an acquaintance asked him to drive the truck and that he didn't know about the drugs.

The police officer testified that he had never heard of drug smugglers using a blind courier — that is, someone who wasn't aware they were carrying drugs.

The Supreme Court ruling said that testimony was irrelevant and should have been excluded. However, the majority found there was plenty of other evidence to sustain the conviction.

"The flawed testimony upon which the trial judge relied forms one sentence of a 16-page judgment that is otherwise flawless," Moldaver wrote. "In particular, the trial judge provided a long list of reasons for disbelieving the appellant and rejecting his testimony as incredible."

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louis LeBel disagreed.

"The Crown’s case against the appellant was circumstantial, the errors of law were very serious, and I do not believe the evidence would inevitably have resulted in a verdict of guilt despite these errors," LeBel wrote in the dissent.

"I would order a new trial."

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article has not yet been rated.
  • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

Sort by: Newest to Oldest | Oldest to Newest | Most Popular 0 Commentscomment icon

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

There are no comments at the moment. Be the first to post a comment below.

Post Your Commentcomment icon

  • You have characters left

The Brandon Sun does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. Comments are moderated before publication. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.


Make text: Larger | Smaller

Brandon Sun Business Directory
Submit a Random Act of Kindness
Why Not Minot?
Welcome to Winnipeg

Social Media