R. v. Keilty
In the case R.v.Keilty the accused, Keilty, was charged and convicted of
trafficking in narcotics. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on
the grounds that the trial judge erred in law. The facts in the case were not
disputed but the actual definition of possession under section 2 of the
Narcotic Control Act was the issue. The appellant never actually did sell the
narcotics nor did he at anytime have possession. It is illogical to convict a
person of possession when they don't actually have possession as defined in the
Criminal Code. Therefore is it logical to convict a person of trafficking if
there were no narcotics?
Crown arguments
The actual possession is irrelevant because section 2 of the Narcotic
Control Act states that trafficking means: (a) to manufacture, sell, give,
administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute, or (b) offer to do anything
referred to in paragraph (a) otherwise than under the authority of this Act or
the regulation......
Join Now or Login to view the rest of this paper.
Approximate Word Count: 684
Approximate Pages: 3 (260 words per double-spaced page) |