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. The officer paid Greyeyes for his assistance. Greyeyes was acquitted of trafficking in cocaine at trial, but the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered a conviction. The central question is whether someone assisting a purchaser of narcotics can be found guilty of aiding or abetting trafficking under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code.

Issues

Can a person who assists a purchaser of narcotics be considered a party to the offence of trafficking under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code by aiding or abetting the sale of narcotics? Is such a person entitled to the same exception to trafficking accorded to purchasers?

Legal Analysis

The court was split in its reasoning but agreed on the outcome. Four justices (La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka and Gonthier JJ.) argued that Parliament intended to exclude not only purchasers but also those solely assisting purchasers from trafficking charges. They believe that finding otherwise would lead to unwarranted convictions and that the proper charge should be aiding or abetting possession. However, they found Greyeyes did more than simply assist the purchaser; he actively facilitated the transfer of narcotics, thus aiding trafficking. Three justices (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 under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code. They reasoned that such a person assists in the commission of the offence by bringing the purchaser to the seller. They stated that Greyeyes aided in the sale of narcotics within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of the Code and encouraged the sale within the meaning of s. 21(1)(c) of the Code. They also clarified the mens rea requirement for aiding and abetting, finding that Greyeyes had the necessary intent to facilitate the sale of narcotics.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's conviction of Greyeyes for trafficking. The court found that Greyeyes' actions went beyond merely assisting a purchaser and constituted aiding and abetting the trafficking of narcotics under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal was within its jurisdiction to interfere with the trial judge’s findings since only the legal conclusion to be drawn from the undisputed facts was in dispute.

Transcript

Welcome back to Casepod! Today, we're diving into R. v. Greyeyes, a fascinating case about drug trafficking and the tricky question of who's considered a party to a crime. So, the basic story: Greyeyes helped an undercover cop score some cocaine, even getting paid for his trouble. At trial, he was acquitted of trafficking, but the Court of Appeal flipped that, convicting him. The big question the Supreme Court had to grapple with was this: can someone who *helps* a buyer get drugs be guilty of *trafficking*? It seems straightforward, but this is where the legal nuances get interesting. The key lies in section 21(1) of the Criminal Code, which deals with aiding and abetting. Does assisting a buyer equate to aiding and abetting the *seller* in trafficking? The Court was split, although they agreed on the final outcome. Some Justices thought Parliament intended to protect buyers, and by extension, those *only* assisting buyers, from trafficking charges. They argued that if we charge everyone assisting a buyer with trafficking, we're casting too wide a net and should use aiding possession instead. However, they felt Greyeyes did more than just help the buyer; he actively helped the transfer of narcotics. Other Justices took a different approach. They argued that someone helping a buyer *can* be a party to trafficking. Why? Because they're facilitating the *sale* by connecting buyer and seller. In Greyeyes' case, they believed he aided and even encouraged the sale. They also clarified that Greyeyes definitely *intended* to facilitate the sale. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Greyeyes' conviction. They decided his actions went beyond simply helping the buyer. He actively aided and abetted the trafficking. This case highlights the importance of looking at the specific actions of the accused. Are they *solely* assisting the buyer, or are they playing a more active role in the supply of the drugs? It's not always a clear-cut distinction. R. v. Greyeyes reminds us that drug laws, while seemingly straightforward, can be complex in their application, particularly when dealing with issues of aiding and abetting. It shows how important it is to examine the defendant's conduct and intent.