Top News

New trial ordered in P.E.I. drug case

Scales of justice.
Sahouli, now Flynn, will be re-tried. - 123RF Stock Photo

Man sentenced for conspiracy to traffic marijuana successfully appeals conviction

CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I. —

A man who was arrested as part of a drug investigation that spanned three provinces had his case sent back to P.E.I. Supreme Court for a retrial after a successful appeal.

Malek Sahouli, who has since changed his name to Adam Flynn, was sentenced in 2018 to two years in prison for his alleged role in a drug investigation known as Project Lurid.

Flynn appealed his conviction after a P.E.I. Supreme Court judge denied his application to have evidence excluded that the police obtained after getting dialed number recorder (DNR) warrants and wiretap authorization.  

In a recent unanimous decision, P.E.I. Court of Appeal Justice John Mitchell wrote the trial judge made errors of law and the matter should be sent back to the Supreme Court for a retrial.

Flynn was charged with conspiracy to traffic marijuana after his arrest in 2014 for his alleged role in a drug operation that saw drugs move from Montreal to P.E.I. through New Brunswick.

During a previous court appearance, the court heard the police seized 38 pounds of marijuana, $44,000 in cash, 12 bullets and various drug paraphernalia when they arrested Flynn.

As part of the investigation that led to Flynn’s arrest, investigators sought and obtained DNR warrants, which provided information about cellphone use by suspects in the case. 

Flynn pleaded not guilty, argued his rights were violated and sought to have evidence obtained under two DNR warrants thrown out, along with a wiretap authorization.

The trial judge dismissed Flynn’s application, which allowed the evidence to stand.

Flynn’s appeal argued the trial judge made several errors in law, including giving insufficient reasons for his decision.

Mitchell wrote in the appeal decision that the trial judge did make errors in law.

In granting the appeal, Mitchell wrote Flynn and the Crown are entitled to a decision from a trial court on the admissibility of the evidence.


Twitter.com/ryanrross 

Recent Stories