R. v. Adey, [2001] Nfld. P.C. 1300A-01158 Adey bought a stolen satellite dish from a stranger at the Viking Mall in St Anthony, Newfoundland. He paid $175 for the dish and had it set up at his house. The dish had originally been purchased by a Mr. Russell in St. John's. He had paid $349 (plus tax). The dish was stolen from him on a flight through St. Anthony. Adey was arrested and charged with possession of stolen property contrary to s. 354(1) of the Criminal Code which states, 354. (1) Possession of property obtained by crime - Everyone commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from (a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or (b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment. The Crown argued that the mens rea for the offence was established in this case by the defendant's wilful blindness - Adey had ignored a number of "red flags" and proceeded in his purchase despite knowing that he should inquire further into the dish's origin. Counsel for the accused argued that the price paid for the dish was not so outrageously low that it should have caused the accused to be suspicious; therefore, the Crown had not established that wilful blindness applied. In his decision, the trial judge noted that wilful blindness "requires suspicion, combined with a conscious decision to refrain from making inquiries. This is why our law equates it with having actual knowledge. An accused cannot deliberately remain ignorant and escape criminal liability as a result." a) What are the actus reus and mens rea of this offence? b) What "red flags" did the Crown argue Adey should have noticed? c) How did "wilful blindness" apply to this case? d) Should Adey be found guilty or not guilty? Explain