R.V. Keilty :: essays research papers

R. v. KeiltyIn the sideslip R.v.Keilty the accused, Keilty, was charged and confidence tricked oftrafficking in narcotics. He then appealed to the Supreme court of legal philosophy of Canada onthe grounds that the trial judge erred in law. The facts in the subject field were notdisputed but the actual definition of possession chthonian section 2 of theNarcotic Control Act was the issue. The appellant never very did grass thenarcotics nor did he at some(prenominal)time have possession. It is illogical to convict aperson of possession when they dont actually have possession as defined in theCriminal Code. Therefore is it logical to convict a person of trafficking ifthere were no narcotics?Crown arguments     The actual possession is opposed because section 2 of the NarcoticControl Act countrys that trafficking means (a) to manufacture, sell, give,administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute, or (b) offer to do anythingreferred to in paragraph (a) otherwise than beneath the authority of this Act orthe regulation The appellant obviously offered to sell the narcotics to theofficer and as in R.v.Mancuso he should be found guilty. withal the actualphysical possession is not necessarily needed to be proven as was in R.v.Russowhere the defendant was convicted of possession and trafficking even though hedid not posses at any time the narcotics. In the guinea pig R.v.Piscopo it wasdemonstrated that an accused canister be convicted upon circumstantial evidence. Theaccused can be convicted using all of the aforementioned slipperinesss. Another issueis that if this case becomes precedent it would open a "floodgate" or loopholein the law where other criminals may escape through. This would allow for moredangerous dealers of narcotics, who depart their business "long distance" toescape prosecution because they never actually had the narcotics in theirpossession.Appellant arguments     A person sho uld not be stigmatized by conviction for a criminal offensethey did not actually commit.. The case R.v.Vallancourt illustrates the use ofthe "stigma" test. A person who is convicted of possession should not be alsobranded as a trafficker of narcotics also. Another precept brought to thecourt from the R.v.Vallancourt case is that a crime requires a minimal state ofmental blameworthiness. This means that the person must bear a accepted degreeof moral fault for what he did. To convict the accused of trafficking innarcotics when everyone acknowledges that there were no narcotics would seem toviolate this principle. Using the rational participation established in theR.v.Oakes it would appear as if the government of Canada is trying to digesttrafficking but if a person who did not posses or sell any narcotics is