In order to prove possession for the purpose of trafficking, the prosecution must prove possession and that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking. The intention to traffic can be proven through statements or circumstances. Typical circumstances that tend to support a finding that an accused possess a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking include (1) the quantity of the substance; (2) packaging of the substance; and (3) paraphernalia associated with trafficking.
A drug defence lawyer at Mickelson & Whysall will prepare defences to both elements of the offence of possession of the purpose of trafficking. Even if the evidence of possession is strong, many times the evidence of intent to traffick is inconclusive. Moreover, the level of participation is often an issue as conviction for trafficking does not properly follow when an individual simply acts as an agent for a purchaser.
Production of Methamphetamine
Clandestine Laboratories are widely viewed as serious criminal activity that warrants significant condemnation from our courts. For this reason, judges will not hesitate to order lengthy terms of incarceration, even for first time offenders. A proper defence starts with an examination of the police investigation. If the police have violated the client’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in obtaining the evidence, the court may rule the evidence inadmissible. Evidence obtained by the police in an unlawful manner or contrary to the Charter typically becomes subject to scrutiny of the court upon the application of your criminal defence lawyer at trial. In any given case the court may accept your lawyer’s application to rule the evidence inadmissible and dismiss the charges.
In addition, a basic concept of Canadian criminal law is that a person cannot be convicted unless it is established that they had a guilty mind. With respect to possession of any prohibited drug, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the character of the forbidden substance. This element of the offence is required even with the most serious drug offences. In addition, the prosecution must also prove to the court that the accused had control over the prohibited substance. The degree of control must be more than casual or hasty manipulation in order for the court to ground a conviction. Merely consorting with a person who has possession is insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary to find an accused guilty of either possession, possession for the purpose of trafficking, or production.