ACCUSED PAIR IN GROW-OP FREE AFTER JUDGE COMPARES THEM TO PHOTO

VANCOUVER -- B.C. Provincial Court Judge Peder Gulbransen has worn
glasses since he was in Grade 3. He says his eyesight is not
particularly good. It's not terrible, just not very good. He says he
kept the limitations with his eyesight in mind when he decided
recently that two Vietnamese immigrants before him in the courtroom
were not the same two people in a photograph that police had found on
the wall of the living room in a house with 935 marijuana plants.

Before dismissing charges related to operating a marijuana growing
operation, Judge Gulbransen said he could see the resemblances, but he
also identified some differences.

The woman in court, who identified herself as Thi Anh Nguyen, and the
woman in the photograph looked "somewhat alike at best," Judge
Gulbransen said in a ruling posted this week on the court's website.

He saw a stronger resemblance between the male in the photograph and
Duc Binh Truong, the male in court. But Judge Gulbransen thought Mr.
Truong looked older and had a darker complexion than the male in the
photo. He could not conclude "with any certainty" that the persons in
the photograph were Ms. Nguyen and Mr. Truong.

The photograph was central to the Crown's case against Ms. Nguyen, 26,
and Mr. Truong, 30. The court heard that cars registered in their
names had been in the driveway hours before the search began on March
6, 2006, but neither Mr. Truong nor Ms. Nguyen were in the home when
police armed with a search warrant entered the house in Langley.

The court was told that police found marijuana plants in most rooms,
including the bedrooms. Food was in the fridge, the dishwasher had
been loaded and clothes were in the closets. The living room had
several children's playthings and photos on the wall, including a
large photo of a man and woman with an infant and a smaller photo of
the couple with a child in the room where the photos were displayed.

During the search, police also found Mr. Truong's name or a variation
of it on a federal government "record of landing," a city business
licence, official notice that a driving suspension had been revoked
and letters from ICBC.

Documents from an immigration services firm, addressed to Duc Binh
Truong, indicated that service was provided for "family (wife)
sponsorship." Police found a receipt for a cash retainer of $1,000.

They also found a Vietnamese passport in the name of Ms. Nguyen issued
July 7, 2000, a Canadian visitor's visa for Ms. Nguyen issued in
December, 2000, and a Canadian government document allowing Ms. Nguyen
to enter Canada to attend university.

Neither Mr. Truong nor Ms. Nguyen gave police any information about
their identity after they were arrested.

Mr. Truong and Ms. Nguyen's lawyer told the court the evidence only
proves their names are the same as those found on documents in the
house. The photographs were not a reliable basis to prove they were
the same persons. A judge making a comparison is subject to all the
frailties of anyone making an eyewitness identification, the court was
told.

Neither Mr. Truong and Ms. Nguyen testified during the two-day trial
in May. They were not available yesterday for an interview. Their
lawyer, Marvin Stern, said he could not comment on whether the couple
were who police alleged they were.

Mr. Stern also said the Crown had relied entirely on circumstantial
evidence. "What the Crown tried to do was say, look at the photos on
the wall, and you can conclude the two people in photos are the
accused," he said.

But no evidence was submitted on when or where they were arrested. The
Crown did not have any fingerprint evidence or anything else concrete
that tied the two people to the home. "At the end of day, from what
[the judge] had before him, he was not able to connect the accused
definitely to the house," Mr. Stern said.

The acquittal was a setback for police who have devoted considerable
time and resources in recent years to investigating marijuana grow-ops
in numerous communities in B.C.

Police were frustrated when their investigations did not lead to a
conviction, RCMP Corporal Peter Thiessen said yesterday in an interview.

"When we're not successful, we look at why we weren't and hopefully
avoid that the next time," he said.

Robert Prior, regional director of the federal public prosecutor
services, said lawyers were reviewing the transcript to see what transpired.

A decision on whether to file an appeal will be made within the next
two weeks, he said.