LY205 Lecture Notes - Narcotic Control Act, Hashish
This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 1 pages of the document.
Crim Law in Canada
October 2, 2012
Week 4, Tuesday
Facts of the Oakes case:
R v. Oakes
Reverse Onus- underscored the right to be presumed innocent until guilty.
David Edwin Oakes
D.E Oakes drugs on his person
8 1 gram vials of Hashish Oil
Told them at police station that he bought 10 vials, but he only had 8 at the time of seizure.
$619.45 was from a workers compensation cheque.
Other two vials- must've been used or sold.
Charged- police lay an information, they would have done that on the scene when they stopped him.
Possession for the purpose of Trafficking- Section 8 of Narcotics Control Act
Date: 1986 February (date of decision)
March 12th 1985: charged.
Section 8: 14 years max.
Issues: (in the form of questions)
•Is section 8 of N.C.A inconsistent with section 11d of the charter (Right to innocence until
proven guilty) and therefore of no force and effect.
•Whether of not Reverse Onus is a reasonable limit?
first at trial division:
he was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, crown appealed:
Court of Appeal:
dismissed. Means the charge is of no force and effect.
Chief Justice dixon wrote final decision.
Unanimous decision that the laws were of no force and effect.
Dixon: the oakes test:
•charge must be of significant value.
•Is the offence of significant damage that it allows for a charter violation.
•Rationally connected to the objective
•Proportionality Test: balance between effects and consequences.
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version