 |
| John L. Hill |
Crawley was returning from Vernon, Calif., hauling hair products for delivery to Vancouver. He claimed the trailer was “live-loaded” and that no one else had access to the truck. Officers discovered inconsistencies in his statements and referred him for large-scale imaging (LSI). Imaging revealed anomalies in the truck’s cab, leading to a detailed search.
Officers discovered two hidden compartments, which were newly constructed and unusual for a sleeper cab. They also found bricks of cocaine in one compartment and tools, including drills and screws, stored under the bunk — matching those used to build the hidden compartments. More importantly, they discovered Crawley’s fingerprint on the interior panel of one of the secret compartments.
Golden Sikorka: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Crown also consulted experts who stated that cocaine typically travels from Colombia to Mexico. It is then brought into the United States before reaching Canada via Highway I-5 (Los Angeles and Vancouver are considered primary drug “hubs”).
Two types of couriers are used: those with knowledge and “blind” couriers. Blind couriers are unaware they are transporting drugs and are typically shielded from detection to provide plausible deniability.
Crawley claimed he had no knowledge of the drugs. Pamela Fik, the owner of the trucking company, had a brother named Paul Singh, who Crawley suspected might have been responsible for planting the drugs. The defence argued that Crawley was an innocent “blind” courier, possibly used unknowingly by organized criminals to import drugs.
The defence argued that no drugs were discovered in the trailer where the cargo was stored. The sleeper cab, where the cocaine was concealed, is not a typical smuggling spot. Someone else, such as the employer’s brother, might have had access to the truck and planted the drugs.
The defence emphasized the lack of direct evidence that Crawley had constructed or was aware of the compartments. It was also argued that the fingerprint on the panel of a hidden compartment could merely be from innocent contact.
Fik, the owner of Crossroadz, for whom Crawley drove, testified that Crawley chose his routes to southern California and had completed approximately 37 trips. She denied that her brother was involved in the company, but Singh had access to the truck and was listed in logs as having driven it on four occasions in 2019.
After the trial was concluded, defence counsel, despite the objection of the Crown, attempted to file 47 pages of written submissions. The trial judge heard the argument without reading the brief but ruled against accepting it.
The court questioned Fik’s credibility due to her evasive testimony. However, the trial judge dismissed Crawley’s denial, considering his story unlikely. The matching tools, his fingerprint, and the custom-designed compartments showed knowledge and control.
Crawley was convicted in the Provincial Court of British Columbia on Dec. 4, 2023. He appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision was issued on July 31, 2025 (R. v. Crawley, 2025 BCCA 266).
One of the grounds Crawley raised was the trial judge’s refusal to accept the additional submissions. Crawley considered the filing to be an application to reopen the trial and relied on R. v. Griffith, 2013 ONCA 510. He argued that reopening was a proper exercise of a judge’s trial management power (R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9).
The Court of Appeal held that Crawley had been allowed to make a full and liberal reply to the Crown’s closing submissions. There was no unfairness in the trial judge’s decision not to review them.
The appeal was dismissed. The appellate court found no errors and upheld the conviction, concluding that Crawley had a fair trial and there was no miscarriage of justice. Crawley’s conviction for cocaine importation and possession for trafficking was based on strong circumstantial and physical evidence indicating he knew about the hidden compartments and their illegal contents. The appeal court rejected his claim of ignorance, and the conviction remains in effect.
The evidence linking Crawley was all circumstantial. However, the appeal court adhered to well-established principles that an inference of guilt based on circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference drawn. If there are reasonable alternatives to guilt, the Crown fails to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Other reasonable inferences must be grounded in logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
The conviction was founded on the entire body of circumstantial evidence, and the trial judge’s conclusion of guilt was reasonable.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.