R v Feutrill

The appellant, Paul John Feutrill, was convicted in the District Court of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and cocaine, and of possessing a firearm without a licence. These convictions followed a jury trial. The drugs and firearm were discovered in a motor vehicle that the appellant frequently used. The appellant appealed these convictions.

The appeal raised two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the concept of possession were adequate, particularly concerning the distinction between mere knowledge or acquiescence and actual possession, and whether the jury was properly directed on the possibility of joint possession. Secondly, the appeal questioned the propriety of the trial judge providing a portion of the trial transcript to the jury in response to their request for clarification on the use of circumstantial evidence.

The court considered the appellant's argument that the trial judge's directions on possession were insufficient, referencing the principles established in *R v GNN*. In *R v GNN*, it was held that mere knowledge of the presence of drugs and acquiescence in their possession by another were not sufficient to establish possession. The court in *Feutrill* noted that the circumstances of *GNN* were distinct, particularly concerning the potential for exclusive possession by others. The trial judge in *Feutrill* had directed the jury that knowledge alone was insufficient and that physical control coupled with an intention to exercise control was required. The appellate court found that, in the context of the evidence presented, these directions were sufficient to adequately address the issue of possession and the possibility of joint possession, and that the prosecution had not been required to exclude a hypothesis of joint possession. Regarding the jury's request for a transcript, the court found that the judge had provided a relevant portion of his summing up on circumstantial evidence, and that the jury's subsequent lack of further requests indicated their satisfaction with the provided information.

The appeal was dismissed.