R vs keilty

Submitted by: Joseph

The following essays, term papers and book reports should be viewed only as examples. You can't use them as material for school and university works!

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 The appellant obviously offered to sell the narcotics to the officer and as in R.v.Mancuso he should be found guilty Also the actual physical possession is not necessarily needed to be proven as was in R.v.Russo where the defendant was convicted of possession and trafficking even though he did not posses at any time the narcotics. In the case R.v.Piscopo it was demonstrated that an accused can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence The accused can be convicted using all of the aforementioned cases Another issue is that if this case becomes precedent it would open a "floodgate" or loophole in the law where other criminals may escape through