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 refer....

Number Of Pages: 3

Number Of Words: 743

Got a term paper due soon and need some help quick? You have come to the right place. Essay Galaxy has over 50,000 essays, papers, and reports available for download right now! Get ideas from thousands students just like you to help make that essay perfect. Don't hesitate. Join today and get instant access to our enormous database.

Membership Options Price Savings   1 month subscription    $19.95 recurring * 3 months subscription    $39.95 recurring $19.90 6 months subscription    $69.95 non-recurring $49.75