Canadian Criminal Evidence/Recent Possession

Generally
The doctrine of recent possession permits the court to make the inference that the possessor of the property had knowledge that the property was obtained in the commission of the offence, and in certain circumstances was also a party to the initial offence.

When considering whether to make the inference of recent possession, the trier-of-fact must take into account all the circumstances. This includes common sense factors such as the amount of time that passed between possession and the offence.

Recency is a matter of circumstances such as type and size of the items. In certain cases recency can include periods longer than a month.

To permit the inference, the Crown must establish 1) that the accused was found in possession of the item and 2) that the item was recently stolen. Where it can be said that the accused was found in recent possession without explanation to trier of fact may, but not necessarily, draw the inference regarding the accused's role in the theft or related offences.

Factors to consider whether the possession was "recent" includes:
 * 1) the nature of the object;
 * 2) the rareness of the object;
 * 3) the readiness with which the object can, and is likely to, pass to another; and
 * 4) the ease of identification.

Where the doctrine has been invoked, the Defence can counter the presumption by way of a reasonable explanation.

It is not necessary to go beyond the test for recent possession to determine the accused's degree of participation. That is, whether the accused was a principle or accomplice.

Cases

 * R. v. Palaga, 2008 SKCA 36 -- acquitted of B&E
 * R. v. Goulet, 2005 SKPC 104 -- convicted of B&E
 * R. v. Harris, 1995 CanLII 4187 (NS CA) -- convicted of B&E
 * R. v. J.R.L.J., 1994 CanLII 7617 -- convicted of B&E