Defence

Drug Offences

OverviewCases

How can a Toronto criminal defence lawyer help you with drug offence charges?

If you have been charged with an offence contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, it is vital to retain counsel and speak to a criminal lawyer immediately.   A conviction for certain drug offences, such as possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic or import a prohibited substance and trafficking carry very severe penalties and will impact your ability to travel to the United States and elsewhere.

Police officers can often be overzealous in their pursuit of people they believe are involved in the drug trade.  People can be charged with trafficking for having quite small amounts of drugs.  Drug cases often become cases about the police conduct from the perspective of the defence. 

The police do not have the right to randomly stop and search individuals or search cars or homes without judicial authorization. 

Even with a warrant, there are defences that can be used to challenge the basis of the warrant.  That is the price we pay to live in a free society.  When police officers overstep their authority and do not take all the required steps before making an arrest and laying a charge, then the accused person may have a defence based on a breach of his or her constitutional rights.

While the general public may have a negative impression of this kind of defence, it is part and parcel of living in a free society.  The defence of individuals charged with drug offences is a check against over policing in general and in particular in certain neighbourhoods.  Very often, the neighbourhoods where people tend to be poorer and racialized, are the neighbourhoods targeted by the police.

In addition to such constitutional defences, there are often defences to drug offences that involve the knowledge and control of the drugs in question.  There are often scenarios that arise where persons are charged with drug offences without knowledge that drugs were present.

If you have been charged with a drug offence, it is vital to retain counsel and determine a defence strategy that suits your case.

As a Toronto criminal lawyer where drug charges occur often, I have defended many drug cases successfully.  I have also successfully defended drug cases in Newmarket, Brampton, Oshawa and Milton.

Related Representative Work

R v. B.C.

Client charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking had charges withdrawn at Old City Hall in Toronto.  The key police officer in the case refused to provide information that the defence was entitled to.  As a result of the failure to disclose evidence, the Crown withdrew the charge.

R v. C.M.

Client had charges of possession of heroin withdrawn at an early stage at Old City Hall due to difficulties proving knowledge and control of heroin found in a car.

R v. J.K.

Client charged with theft under, possession of marihuana and fail to comply had charges withdrawn in Newmarket due to Charter issues with respect to the arrest and search.

R v. J.R.

Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking crack cocaine had his charges withdrawn in Superior Court in Brampton following a three day preliminary inquiry and questioning of the police officers involved in the search.  The Crown concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction following the preliminary inquiry in which the defence argued there was an unconstitutional strip search as well and arrest based on improper grounds.

R v. R.P.

Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking marihuana and obstruct police had charges withdrawn in Brampton on the day of trial.  The Crown withdrew the charge after a defence application that stated that the search was illegal due to the original obstruct police charge being improperly laid.

R v. J.V.

Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine who had possession of 90 grams of cocaine pled guilty to simple possession of cocaine for having possession of 1 gram due to constitutional issues raised by the defence prior to trial.

R v. A.P.

Client charged with production of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking 5 kilograms of marihuana pled guilty to simple possession of marihuana on the day of trial in sudbury due to constitutional issues raised by the defence with respect to obtaining the warrant and relying on a confidential informant.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2009/06/19/alban-grow-op-busted

R v. N.A.

Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking marihuana and possession of cannabis resin (hashish) had charges withdrawn in Milton prior to trial.  As a result of a home search, the police found approximately one pound of marihuana and a small amount of cannabis resin in the accused’s home.  As a result of knowledge and control issues raised by the defence prior to trial, the Crown chose not to proceed on the charges.