R. v. Greyeyes

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

The accused, Greyeyes, assisted an undercover police officer in finding a source of cocaine and purchasing it. He was paid for his assistance. He was acquitted of trafficking in cocaine at trial, but the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered a conviction. The central issue is whether someone assisting a purchaser of narcotics can be found to be a party to the offence of trafficking under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code by aiding or abetting in the sale of narcotics.

Issues

Can a person who assists a purchaser of narcotics be found guilty of aiding or abetting trafficking under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court was divided in its reasoning, but ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The first group (La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier JJ.) argued that Parliament intended to exclude purchasers and those solely assisting purchasers from trafficking offences, suggesting a charge of aiding or abetting possession might be more appropriate in some cases. However, they found that Greyeyes did more than simply assist the purchaser; he actively facilitated the transfer of narcotics. The second group (Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.) argued that someone acting on behalf of a purchaser can be found to be a party to the offence of trafficking by assisting in the sale. They reasoned that Greyeyes's actions assisted the sale and that he intended to facilitate the sale of narcotics, thus satisfying the requirements for aiding or abetting under s. 21(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal's decision to overturn the acquittal and enter a conviction was upheld. The Court found that Greyeyes's actions went beyond merely being a purchaser and constituted aiding and abetting the trafficking of narcotics. He assisted in the sale and intended to do so, satisfying the requirements of s. 21(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, legal eagles! Today, we're diving into a fascinating case about drug trafficking, but with a twist. It's *R. v. Greyeyes*. Now, this case isn't your standard drug bust scenario. Here's the gist: Greyeyes helped an undercover cop score some cocaine. He connected the officer to a dealer and got paid for his troubles. At trial, he was acquitted of trafficking. The appeal court, however, flipped that, convicting him. So, the big question became: can you be guilty of *trafficking* if you're only helping the *buyer*? That’s what the Supreme Court had to grapple with. Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code is key here. It deals with who's a party to an offence. Can someone assisting the purchaser of narcotics be found guilty of aiding or abetting trafficking under this section? The Supreme Court was... well, let's just say they weren't singing from the same hymn sheet. They all agreed on the outcome, but the *why* is where it gets interesting. One group of judges thought Parliament didn't intend for purchasers or their *sole* helpers to be caught up in trafficking charges. They suggested maybe aiding or abetting *possession* would be a better fit in some situations. BUT, they also said Greyeyes did more than just help the buyer. He actively made the drug deal happen. Then you had another group of judges who argued that if you're acting *on behalf* of the buyer and you help with the sale, you're fair game for a trafficking charge. They felt Greyeyes's actions assisted the sale, and he *intended* to facilitate the sale of narcotics. That ticks all the boxes for aiding and abetting under the Criminal Code. So, what was the final verdict? The appeal was dismissed. Greyeyes's conviction stood. The Court decided that he went beyond simply being a purchaser. His actions constituted aiding and abetting trafficking. He assisted in the sale, and he intended to do so. What makes *Greyeyes* so interesting is the debate around the role of the purchaser and those who assist them. The case highlights the nuances of applying aiding and abetting principles to drug offences. It forces us to think about the line between simply facilitating a purchase and actively participating in the sale. It’s a case that really makes you think about the intent and actions behind someone's involvement in a drug transaction. That’s *R. v. Greyeyes* for you: a divided court, a complex legal question, and a decision that highlights the fine lines in trafficking law. Until next time, keep those legal minds sharp!