.
Search
 Email this articleE-mail this story  Discuss this articleWrite letter to editor  Discuss this articleOrder a classified ad  Print this page

No convictions in huge Hay River drug bust

Paul Bickford
Northern News Services

Hay River (Jun 05/06) - There will be no convictions as a result of charges laid in February 2005 after $44,000 in crack cocaine was seized in Hay River.

Originally, five people were charged, but only two went to trial.

In NWT Supreme Court in Hay River last week, charges against one suspect were stayed after the trial had begun, while a not guilty verdict was entered in the other. Both trials were held before Justice Virginia Schuler with no jury.

Henry Beaulieu, 43, of Fort Resolution was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The charge was stayed partway through the trial on the day in began, May 29.

Crown prosecutor Steven Hinkley gave no reason for the stay.

The charge against Beaulieu involved drugs found in a police vehicle after four people were detained from another vehicle.

According to police statements at the time of the incident, 21.5 grams in all of crack cocaine were seized from both vehicles.

A second trial began May 30 for Darlene Ross, 33, of Hay River, also on a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

At the conclusion of the trial the next day, the judge returned with a not guilty verdict.The charge against Ross involved 161.5 grams of crack cocaine found in a residence.

Three other people had been charged in connection with the drug bust, but the cases were dropped months ago without ever going to trial.

Judge declined

The charges were either stayed or a judge declined to send a case to trial following a preliminary hearing.

The others originally charged were Hay River residents Shannon Whitford, 35, Annette Whitford, 32, and August Poitras, 38.

Hinkley said it appears no one will ever be convicted as a result of the drug seizure on Feb. 4, 2005.

Asked if he was disappointed by that outcome, he responded, "It's never a matter of disappointment."

Instead, he explained the Crown presents the facts to the best of its ability and the court makes a decision.