A man arrested at the Pacific Highway border in South Surrey nine years ago after more than 14 kilograms of methamphetamine was found hidden in the car he was driving has been acquitted of trafficking-related charges.

In posted to the B.C. Supreme Court website Thursday (April 20), Justice Janet Winteringham said she believed Rajkumar Subramaniam鈥檚 testimony 鈥� given during an eight-day hearing that wrapped up March 8 in a New Westminster courtroom 鈥� that the traveller was not aware of the drugs that were in his car when he crossed the border on July 1, 2014.

鈥淚 am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether he had a true intention to carry out the offences,鈥� Winteringham said.

鈥淏ased on the evidence and the inferences I have drawn, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Subramaniam knew about the methamphetamine in the Montero or that he was wilfully blind to its presence.

鈥淭he evidence is consistent with Mr. Subramaniam taking a day trip to the U.S. to go shopping.鈥�

READ ALSO:

According to court documents, Subramanium was driving a Mitsubishi Montero when a border services officer referred him for secondary examination. In a hidden compartment that had to be pried open, CBSA officers found wrapped Tupperware containers filled with methamphetamine. They also located a DroneMobile Device concealed in the Montero鈥檚 dashboard.

Subramaniam was charged with unlawful importation and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

Winteringham said the main question before the court was whether the accused knowingly played his part.

At trial, Subramaniam submitted that others with admitted drug-trafficking histories and connection to the Montero and DroneMobile were the likely perpetrators. He testified that he had crossed into the U.S. that day to go shopping, and on return, presented receipts from Walmart and the Gap that he said corroborate his description of the day鈥檚 events.

He also testified that he did not know about the hidden compartment, nor about the drugs inside it.

Defense counsel submitted that the vehicle and drone鈥檚 links to other individuals with drug-trafficking histories provided a basis for 鈥渁lternative suspect and blind courier鈥� defences.

Winteringham described the Crown鈥檚 case as 鈥渆ntirely circumstantial.鈥�

The Crown鈥檚 theory was that Subramaniam 鈥� who was 43 years old at the time, with two prior convictions for fraud 鈥� knew of the drugs, or was wilfully blind to their presence.

However, 鈥渁 person鈥檚 status as the driver of a vehicle does not create a legal presumption that the person had knowledge and control of contraband in the vehicle,鈥� Winteringham said in her reasons.

Subramaniam鈥檚 fingerprints did not match any that were recovered from the concealed containers of meth, the court document notes.

Subramaniam testified that he鈥檇 only left the Montero twice while in the U.S., and that on both occasions, noticed nothing unusual upon his return to it.

While one border services officer testified that Subramaniam appeared nervous during questioning at the border crossing on his return, Subramaniam disagreed with the suggestion, and Winteringham noted that nervousness is not uncommon during such interactions.

鈥淚 am not able to conclude that the level of nervousness observed鈥� is necessarily inconsistent with the normal level of nervousness individuals would exhibit when crossing the border,鈥� she said.

The Crown contended that Subramaniam鈥檚 evidence regarding why he purchased the Montero shifted over time, and Winteringham agreed there were some discrepancies. But Winteringham also said she accepted Subramaniam鈥檚 explanation of those purported discrepancies.

She described Subramaniam鈥檚 testimony regarding his lack of knowledge about the vehicle鈥檚 hidden compartment as both 鈥渃redible鈥� and consistent with independent evidence.

鈥淚 am left with a reasonable doubt as to whether he had a true intention to carry out the offences,鈥� Winteringham said.

鈥淲eighing all of the evidence, there is a rational, reasonable, plausible explanation for all of the circumstantial evidence that is inconsistent with Mr. Subramaniam鈥檚 guilt.鈥�