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?
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. This would allow for more dangerous dealers of narcotics, who operate their business 'long distance' to escape prosecution because they never actually had the...