R.V. Keilty :: essays research papers

R. v. KeiltyIn the case R.v.Keilty the accused, Keilty, was charged and convicted oftrafficking in narcotics. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada onthe grounds that the trial try erred in law. The facts in the case were notdisputed but the veridical definition of possession under section 2 of theNarcotic stop Act was the issue. The appellant never really did sell thenarcotics nor did he at whatsoevertime have possession. It is illogical to convict a someone of possession when they dont actually have possession as defined in theCriminal Code. thusly is it logical to convict a soul of trafficking ifthere were no narcotics? hint arguments     The actual possession is irrelevant because section 2 of the Narcotic chasten Act states 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 under the authority of this Act orthe regul ation The appellant obviously offered to sell the narcotics to theofficer and as in R.v.Mancuso he should be found guilty. Also the actualphysical possession is not necessarily needed to be proven as was in R.v.Russowhere the suspect 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 aforesaid(prenominal) cases. Another issueis that if this case becomes precedent it would open a " floodgate" or loopholein the law where other criminals may lose through. This would forfeit 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 law-breakingthey 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 offense requires a minimal state ofmental blameworthiness. This means that the person essential 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 to let on this principle. Using the rational connection established in theR.v.Oakes it would appear as if the government of Canada is trying to reducetrafficking but if a person who did not posses or sell any narcotics is