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 to view the rest of this term paper!
Members: Login to view this research paper.

Title: R. V. Keilty
Approximate Word Count: 684
Approximate Pages: 3 (250 words per double-spaced page)

With the Term Papers Lab Membership Pass, you get instant access to every essay on this site, including this essay on R. V. Keilty, for as long as you remain a member.

Other essays sites charge almost $100 for a single term paper. At Term Papers Lab, you can get instant access to over 100,000 research papers for as little as $29.95!