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 …
showed first 75 words of 728 total

showed last 75 words of 728 total
…anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession knowingly (I) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or (ii)Has it in any place, wether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person... . Possession does not have to be proven in order for a conviction in trafficking to be upheld. The appeal is dismissed