Entrapment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2020] 1 SCR 577== | ==R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2020] 1 SCR 577== | ||
[5] In each of these two appeals, the police received an unsubstantiated tip that a phone number was associated with drug dealing. An officer called the number and, after a brief conversation, requested drugs. In Javid Ahmad’s case, the trial judge, Allen J., concluded that Ahmad was not entrapped because the police did not offer him an opportunity to traffic drugs until they had sufficiently corroborated the tip in the course of the conversation (2015 ONSC 652). In Landon Williams’ case, Trotter J. found that Williams was entrapped because the police provided him an opportunity to sell cocaine before forming a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in drug trafficking (2014 ONSC 2370, 11 C.R. (7th) 110). The Court of Appeal dismissed Ahmad’s appeal and allowed the Crown appeal in Williams’ case (2018 ONCA 534, 141 O.R. (3d) 241). | |||
[6] Applying Mack, we agree with both trial judges. Ahmad was not entrapped, but Williams was. We would therefore dismiss Ahmad’s appeal but allow Williams’ appeal. | |||
Revision as of 16:52, 8 March 2025
| 🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2025-04-01 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2484 |
| Page Categories: | [Legal Principles] |
| Citation: | Entrapment, CLNP 2484, <https://rvt.link/fc>, retrieved on 2025-04-01 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2025/03/08 |
R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2020] 1 SCR 577
[5] In each of these two appeals, the police received an unsubstantiated tip that a phone number was associated with drug dealing. An officer called the number and, after a brief conversation, requested drugs. In Javid Ahmad’s case, the trial judge, Allen J., concluded that Ahmad was not entrapped because the police did not offer him an opportunity to traffic drugs until they had sufficiently corroborated the tip in the course of the conversation (2015 ONSC 652). In Landon Williams’ case, Trotter J. found that Williams was entrapped because the police provided him an opportunity to sell cocaine before forming a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in drug trafficking (2014 ONSC 2370, 11 C.R. (7th) 110). The Court of Appeal dismissed Ahmad’s appeal and allowed the Crown appeal in Williams’ case (2018 ONCA 534, 141 O.R. (3d) 241).
[6] Applying Mack, we agree with both trial judges. Ahmad was not entrapped, but Williams was. We would therefore dismiss Ahmad’s appeal but allow Williams’ appeal.
References
- ↑ R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2020] 1 SCR 577, <https://canlii.ca/t/j7xvl>, retrieved on 2025-03-08
