FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 311 times | Saved to 354 briefcases
Poitras v R, [1974] SCR 649

Facts:

A (undercover cop) asked L for hash. L knew P who said he knew where he could buy some. L and P went to buy hash. Only L came back

Ratio:

Motive or desire is not relevant is determining the MR for the offence of aiding in trafficking – he just has to do something for the purpose of aiding the trafficking to be convicted (THE DISSENT IS LATER PICKED UP AS LAW NOT THIS)

Analysis:

2 interpretations of the case:
**He was trafficking
**He was acting as agent for purchaser
*Hodges rule - If there are 2 equally possible scenarios, one culpable one not, you must find in favour of the accused – one that doesn’t make him guilty.

Dissent:
*Motive is relevant
**To traffic does not include purchasing – so whether he was purchasing or not is important to determine whether he was aiding in trafficking.

Holding:

P was trafficking or aiding in trafficking

Comments:

Dissent is later picked up as law


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.