Major cocaine trafficking bust sentence on hold

In court, there was no denying that a near-pound of cocaine found in a car’s passenger seat near Prince Albert is a large quantity of a hard drug, but deciding the sentence the driver should serve is proving controversial.

Keegan Venne, now 22, was arrested almost two years ago after he was pulled over by police near the intersection of Highway 2 and 11.

Photo evidence from his trial by a 12-person jury showed a block cocaine in a vacuum-sealed plastic bag just in front of the passenger seat of a car. Tucked in nearby was a sheathed machete.

Venne was found guilty of both possession of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking by that jury this October. Prior to that, he spent time in custody only while under arrest following the bust.

Evidence from that trial pegged the pure cocaine’s purchase value at $42,000. Prince Albert police confirm this is the second-largest bust by its Integrated Street Enforcement Drug Team.

Politics

Liberal leadership race crystallizes as candidates make opening pitches

2h ago

Middle east conflict

Ceasefire between Israel and Hamas to begin Sunday

5h ago

BODY-WORN CAMERAS

RCMP body cameras aim to build trust, but expert says can be "problematic"

Jan 17, 2025

At the Friday sentencing, Federal Crown prosecutor Sylvia Verkerk referred to evidence that once cut, would have a street value close to $100,000.

Verkerk argued for Venne to serve two years less a day in a provincial institution while defence counsel Richard Bell argued for a year to 15 months.

Sentencing submissions from defence counsel Richard Bell and Verkerk got at times heated.

Verkerk said Venne “refuses to show remorse” for his crimes and is “calling himself a victim” based on a presentencing report. Venne shook his head multiple times when a lack of remorse was mentioned.

 She described a young man with no criminal record, who was not an addict and thus was acting based on profit not to support a habit.

He did not apologize for the drugs he was delivering into the city of Prince Albert, and “says he believes he was set up,” Verkerk told the court.

The Crown’s interpretation of the presentence report and discussion with the probation officer who prepared it led to the most controversy. The gallery’s response to some of her statements included scoffs, and Currie reminded them to remain quiet while arguments were given.

She stated that officer contacted Verkerk when working on the report to find out more on the nature of the charges, and expressed concern because in his interview Venne “refused to talk about anything and kept saying he didn’t do it.”

In his submission, Bell said he found some of the Crown’s statements on Venne extremely objectionable.

In Bell’s view the presentencing report was positive based on a recommendation for a community sentence. However, the charges do not allow for such a sentence.

Bell conceded Venne’s initial failure to show remorse does not follow a classic path of admission of responsibility, but said the young man has changed his lifestyle since an arrest that made him feel blindsided. Bell referred to Venne in tears in a videotaped statement soon after that arrest.

Despite the very different submissions, Bell did say he appreciated the Crown seeking a provincial sentence rather than a penitentiary sentence.

 “He’s here’s to take his medicine… the question is how much,” Bell told Justice Currie.

Venne addressed Currie and the court following those submissions.

He detailed a post-arrest life of taking post-secondary schooling in the trades, getting a good job, and following the rules set out by his probation officer.

“I’ve tried to prove myself” to the law, to friends, and to family, he said, adding that he’d done a good job “no matter what anyone says.”

A sentence based on one charge or two?

The arguments entered complex legal territory as both sides argued based on a past Supreme Court ruling title Kineapple v. R.

That ruling set a precedent that even if someone has been found guilty of two offences, they can’t be sentenced for both when a similar set of facts led to those verdicts.

In this case, the question relates to the possession of cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking charges.

Verkerk stated possession is not a necessary condition of trafficking, which makes it separate from the possession for the purpose of trafficking charge. For example, someone who co-ordinates the sale of drugs through phone or communication can be found guilty.

She told Currie there are two separate sets of proof for each charge.

Meanwhile, Bell said the possession charge should be dropped because it was obvious Venne transported the drugs for trafficking based on the jury’s findings and that possession is inherent within that.

Bell largely referred to a condition called “willful blindness,” which is why Venne maintains his view “that he didn’t know the drugs were there.”

He said the jury’s finding of guilt doesn’t necessarily mean he knew the drugs were there.

Before the sentence is handed down, Currie must make a decision on which findings of guilt his sentence will be based off, and the sentence.

claskowski@panow.com

On Twitter: @chelsealaskowsk