CASES CH 7
Case # 21: Greyeyes 1997
Background: Was convicted for with trafficking with cocaine. Acting as agent for
undercover cop (purchaser, not seller) – but doesn’t matter because acted as vendor in
making the sale – without him, transaction would not have been made
Main issue: Can an accused person who acts as an agent for a PURCHASER of narcotic or
who provides assistance to a purchaser to by narcotics be considered a party to the
offence of trafficking by virtue?
Judgement: Normally, a person who aids the purchaser will only be guilty of
aiding/abetting the possession of narcotic, not trafficking. However in this case,
Greyeyes did far more than act as a purchaser. He located the seller, brought buyer to
site, introduced the parties, without the assistance, this purchase would never have
taken place. He acted as spokesperson negotiated price and passed money to seller.
Thus greyeyes should be convicted of aiding in trafficking of narcotics.
Case # 22: Pickton 2010
Background: 27 counts of first degree murder. Pickton was convicted of 6 counts of first
degree murder in his trial. Killing women from the downtown east side of Vancouver, all
victims were sex trade workers
Main issue: Defense argued he might not actually shot some victims, there is possibility
of other individuals involved.
Judgement: Not necessary for him to be sole perpetrator, because he aided/abetted
the offence (luring victims, providing them with drugs, subduing them, etc)
Case #23: Ancio 1984
Background: Went to Kurely’s house, where is wife was staying. He was depressed and
had drank excessively. He take shot gun and break into Kurely’s house, Krely sees him
and throws chair at him. The gun accidently went off.
Main issue: Does Crown need actual intent to kill in order to obtain a charge of
Judgement: Can convict for Murder without actual intent (recklessness)
o But not for attempted murder: need ACTUAL intent.
Case #24: Hamilton 2005
Background: Sold files including instructions for bomb making, house breaking, credit
card generator. Charged under 464 counselling 4 offence that were not committed. He
said he didn’t read the content
Main issue: What is the mens rea for conviction of counselling offence not committed?
Judgement: Mens rea = intent for offence to be committed OR extreme recklessness
(added after this case). The recklessness is a HIGH standard, must be substantial.
He was acquitted for counselling bomb making/break and enter, but was charged for
counselling fraud, because his email had ‘teasar’ advertising the credit card program.