• Vancouver at night

Trafficking / Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking

The Charge

A person can be charged under the Cannabis Act for trafficking or possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking unless it is in accordance with the regulations set out in that Act. The penalties for trafficking cannabis illegally remain severe: if the Crown proceeds by indictment, the maximum sentence is up to 14 years in jail; should Crown proceed summarily, the maximum sentence is 6 months in jail.

With respect to other controlled drugs, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act sets out that different potential penalties depend on the type and amount of drug involved. Controlled drugs and substances are grouped into “schedules” by the CDSA. Drugs are divided into groups according to their chemical composition. Some of the typical drugs are:

Schedule 1: cocaine, morphine, heroin, codeine, fentanyl, oxycodone, GHB, opium, amphetamines, MDMA
Schedule 2: cannabis, resin, and seeds
Schedule 3: LSD, psilocybin, mushrooms
Schedule 4: barbiturates, Clonazepam, Diazepam, and anabolic steroids
Schedule 5: precursors involved in the manufacturing of controlled substances

Penalties for both trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in hard drugs is significant. The maximum sentence is up to lifetime imprisonment for Schedule 1 or 2 substances. The range of sentencing typically starts at 9-12 months in jail for a low level trafficking offence.

Courts have defined trafficking to include “giving” or “delivering” a drug to another person. Profit is not an element of the offence, however the Crown will certainly seek greater penalties where then can show that the offence was motivated by financial gain. The more the facts of the case point to the accused profiting from an organized distribution system, the greater the sentence Crown will seek upon conviction.

The Investigation

Police may be targeting a suspected drug trafficker based on information provided through a tip or, alternatively, police may literally stumble across a suspected drug trafficker during, say, a routine traffic stop or another encounter. In either situation, the law is the same. Police may not search someone for drugs unless they have “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe the person is in possession of a controlled substance. A mere hunch, or suspicion, is not enough.

As experienced drug defence lawyers, we can help clients understand their various rights under the Charter. First, everyone who is detained or arrested by police has the right to be promptly advised as to the reason for their detention and that they have the right to speak to a lawyer. This right is guaranteed by s. 10. The right to remain silent – i.e. the right to not provide a statement to police – is guaranteed by s. 7. In the context of a drug investigation, it is important for a suspect to know and understand that they have the right to remain silent upon arrest. Should charges be approved, the Crown will be obligated to provide full disclosure of the details of the case to the accused. There is clearly an advantage to understand the case against you before providing an explanation. This is the right of everyone in Canada.

Recent Successes

R. v. S.C. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was credible evidence that would meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to the investigating officer that led the investigator to conclude that our client was not chargeable with a criminal offence. No charge approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.K. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Forcible Confinement (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a criminal record.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to proceed only on the assault charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions that our client's evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

R. vs. E.W. – Fort Nelson Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Upon reviewing the allegations, Mr. Mines made representations to Crown counsel resulting in Crown agreeing that there was no reasonable prospect of convicting our client. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Peace Officer; Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to  persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings on both charges upon our client completing the program. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (from weapons charge).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution of our client who had failed to complete a course of court ordered counselling.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an equivalent course of counselling. Upon completion, Crown counsel stayed the proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Causing Danger to Life.
Issue: Given the medical evidence Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Breaking & Entering; Unlawful Confinement; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the prosecution to continue against our client, a U.S. citizen who was in Canada on a visitor's visa.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on all charges upon our client agreeing to a Deportation Order. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death. Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge. Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines'  submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.

R. vs. L.A. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Breach of Probation (from domestic assault charge).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prosecute our client for failing to report and complete counselling.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client back onto an alternative course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. M.K. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats; Extortion.
Issue: Given the age of the charges and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a non custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 16 months. No jail.

R. vs. K.A. – Western Communities Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issues: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel regarding the complainant's past unlawful behaviour toward our client, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: As a result of the information we provided, Crown counsel withdrew the charge. No further bail restrictions. No criminal record.

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees the right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in a drug case often involves analyzing the actions of investigating police officers to test whether they have, in fact, conducted a lawful search as authorized by the Charter. Drug searches can take place in a variety of contexts and places. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a judge or justice in order to search a place or thing. The requirement to obtain a search warrant will depend on the privacy interest the accused has in the thing searched. For example, a person has a very high privacy interest in their home or in their personal computer. They tend to have a lower privacy interest in things such as their friend’s car or their employer’s desk. Where police overreach their authority and search someone on a mere hunch, or based on assumptions rather than fact, we will apply to the court under s. 24(2) of the Charter to have the evidence excluded from the trial. The general idea is that when police obtain evidence from an unlawful search that violates our client’s rights, the court ought to see the evidence as “tainted” and tending to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Without the admission of the drug evidence into the trial, the court will find insufficient evidence to convict.

The Drugs were not for the Purpose of Trafficking

In order to prove possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown will usually bring a police expert witness to court. They will testify that the circumstances of the drug seizure tend to prove that the drugs were intended to be sold or distributed. Typical evidence relates to the way the drugs are packaged – many small packs suggest trafficking. The presence of scales, “score sheets,” cash and cell phones also tend to suggest trafficking. Our experience in defending drug charges allows us to develop arguments aimed at challenging expert Crown witnesses on their opinions that the circumstances of the drug seizure necessarily suggest trafficking rather than simple possession. In many cases we have been able to negotiate possession for the purpose of trafficking charges down to simple possession charges to avoid jail sentences for our clients.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, accused persons are arrested without drugs directly in their possession. For example, they may be driving someone else’s car and drugs are found in an unmarked box in the trunk. A roommate may be charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, but none of the drugs are found in their personal space of the residence. In these situations, the Crown will seek to prove possession through indirect, or circumstantial evidence. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the Crown’s burden in proving that an accused had the requisite knowledge and control of the substance in order to be convicted. We are dedicated to holding the Crown to the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting drug offences. We are committed to defending our client’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.