FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,212 times | Saved to 401 briefcases
R v Greyeyes, [1997] 2 SCR 825


Undercover officer asked G for cocaine. G said he knew someone and if he drove G he would get some.


Has G acted for the purpose of aiding the trafficking of drugs or is he a mere purchaser?


Motive is relevant in order to distinguish between traffickers and purchasers – Dissent Poitras.
What is the definition of MR – someone whose acts are designed to aid the purchaser yet incidentally aid the seller, have assisted much more in the purchase than in the sale – as such they must share the culpability of the purchaser rather then vendor


G did far more than act as a purchaser- w/o Gs assistance the purchase never would have taken place

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.