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 ....

Number Of Words: 743

Number Of Pages: 3

Join today and get unlimited access to our vast database of student-written essays and term papers. This paper along with over 45,000 other papers are available in our member's area right now. Full instant access is just seconds away! Membership Options Price 1 month  subscription $18.95 recurring        3 months subscription $34.95 recurring        6 months subscription $59.95 non-recurring