The Glock in the Duplex
R v Dupray (2024)
Charge: Possession of a loaded restricted firearm without authorization (s. 95(1)) Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia Province: British Columbia Heard on GUILTY or NOT? CDN: 2 October 2026
The facts
Early one February morning police executed search warrants on two adjoining duplex units and seized roughly 780 grams of cocaine. The Accused lived in one unit with his partner; a co-accused was arrested in the adjoining unit. Only the Accused faced the firearm count: possession of a loaded restricted firearm, a 9mm handgun, without authorization or licence. An extended magazine was recovered - but it was found in the other unit, away from the handgun. The Crown said possession was made out and that the surrounding drug operation supplied the context. The Defence accepted that the Crown might prove he had the gun, but pressed a narrower point: the offence charged is possession of a loaded firearm, and there was no evidence that the Accused knew, or was wilfully blind to, the fact that this particular handgun was loaded.
You have the facts the court had. Did the Crown prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Render your verdict in the game, then see what the court actually decided — and why.
Terms in this case
Citation: R v Dupray, 2024 BCSC 2554
Read the full decision at bccourts.ca. The source reveals the outcome.