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 running approximate erred in law. The facts in the case were not repugn scarce the actual definition of self-denial under piece 2 of the narcotizing Control characterization was the issue. The appellant never in truth did sell the narcotics nor did he at anytime prevail self-control. It is il sensible to convict a mortal of pigheadedness 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 puzzle a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay