The non-medical use of drugs : interim report.

  • Canada. Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs.
Date:
1971
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The non-medical use of drugs : interim report. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    349/452 (page 347)
    e have also heard criticisms of the Writ of Assistance under which the police are empowered at any time to enter and search a dwelling (using force to effect such entry) and of the employment of undercover agents and informants. Since these methods are apparently necessary because of the extreme diffi- culty of detecting and securing evidence of drug violations, we make no comment on them at this time other than to observe that they reflect a part of the special price which society must pay for enforcement of the drug laws. As we have indicated, the price may be altogether too high in the case of the offence of simple possession. We reluctantly concede its continuing necessity so long as there must be a serious effort to control trafficking. 471. The same observations apply to another aspect of the drug laws which has attracted critical comment during the initial phase of our inquiry — namely the extent to which the traditional burden of proof is shifted to the accused. The primary burden to prove the fact of possession in a charge of simple possession is on the Crown, but the burden is on the accused to prove any exception, exemption, excuse or qualification by law which operates in his favour — for example, that such possession is authorized by the Act or regulations. _In the case of the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking, once the Court has found, in what amounts to the first trial, that the accused was in possession within the meaning of the Act, the burden is on the accused to show that such possession was not for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown may establish the inference of intent to traffic from such circum- stantial evidence as the quantity of drugs found in the possession of the accused, implements or devices suggesting distribution, and contacts of the accused with others, and the burden on the accused is a difficult one to discharge. In fact, however, proof of possession does not by itself estab- lish intent to traffic, so that there must be some evidence of intent to justify a conviction. What the burden on the accused does, in most cases, is to compel him to testify, which is contrary to the general principles of criminal justice. Is this departure from our general standards of protection of the accused really justified by the evil to which the law is directed and the special difficulties