R.V. Keilty :: essays research papers

R. v. KeiltyIn the case R.v.Keilty the incriminate, Keilty, was charged and convicted oftrafficking in narcotics. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada onthe grounds that the trial judge erred in law. The facts in the case were notdisputed but the actual definition of stubbornness under section 2 of theNarcotic Control Act was the issue. The appellant never actually did sell thenarcotics nor did he at anytime have possession. It is illogical to convict a soul 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? cap arguments     The actual possession is irrelevant because section 2 of the NarcoticControl Act states that trafficking means (a) to manufacture, sell, give,administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute, or (b) offer to do anythingreferred to in divide (a) otherwise than under the authority of this Act orthe regulatio n The appellant obviously offered to sell the narcotics to theofficer and as in R.v.Mancuso he should be put in guilty. Also 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 case R.v.Piscopo it wasdemonstrated that an accused can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence. Theaccused can be convicted using all of the aforementioned cases. 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 operate their business "long distance" toescape prosecution because they never actually had the narcotics in theirpossession.Appellant arguments     A person should 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 principle 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 certain 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 connection established in theR.v.Oakes it would appear as if the government of Canada is trying to centertrafficking but if a person who did not posses or sell any narcotics is