R. V. Keilty

R. V. Keilty R. v. Keilty In the case R.v.Keilty the accused, Keilty, was charged and con gameed of trafficking in narcotics. He wherefore appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the audition approximate erred in law. The facts in the case were not contend scarce the actual definition of self-denial under piece 2 of the narcotizing Control work was the issue. The appellant neer in truth did sell the narcotics nor did he at anytime hit stubbornness. It is il sensible to convict a psyche of obstinacy when they dont actually have possession as defined in the Criminal Code. Therefore is it logical to convict a person of trafficking if there were no narcotics?

round top 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) bear to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) otherwise than under the liberty of ...If you want to light a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay