R. v. Winsor, (1976) 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310 (NFPC)

• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1976), 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310 (NFPC)

R. v. Winsor (1976), 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310 (NFPC);

    12 A.P.R. 310

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Winsor

Indexed As: R. v. Winsor

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of St. John's

Luther, Mag.

March 3, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of charges against the accused that he trafficked in hashish and had possession of hashish for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1. The accused gave away one gram of hashish and kept in his possession 13 more grams of hashish. The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking and pleaded the defence of res judicata to the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Magistrate held that the defence of res judicata was inapplicable and convicted the accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Magistrate held that the trafficking was a separate offence from that of the possession of the remaining hashish by the accused after the trafficking offence occurred.

Criminal Law - Topic 80

General principles - Res judicata - Two offences arising out of same circumstances - Accused gave away one gram of hashish and kept in his possession 13 more grams - Accused was charged with trafficking and with possession for the purpose of trafficking - Accused pleaded guilty to trafficking and pleaded the defence of res judicata to the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the defence of res judicata was inapplicable and convicted the accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Cases Noticed:

Kienapple v. The Queen (1974), 1 N.R. 322, 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 2].

Cote v. The Queen, 8 N.R. 1, 26 C.R.N.S. 26 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 4].

R. v. Siggins, 127 C.C.C. 409 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Vickers (1963), 41 C.R. 235 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Rodriquez, 22 C.C.C.(2d) 302, (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

People v. Daghita (1950), 93 N.E.(2d) 649 (N.Y.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Hemmingway, Ewert and Benford, 5 C.C.C.(2d) 127 (B.C. Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Lapierre, 29 C.R.N.S. 353 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Boyce, 23 C.C.C.(2d) 16, consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Young, 14 C.R.N.S. 372 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 306(1)(b), sect. 309(1) [para. 12].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2).

Counsel:

V. Randall J. Earle, for the accused;

David C. Day, for the Crown.

This case was heard before Magistrate LUTHER of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland, District of St. John's. On March 3, 1976, Magistrate LUTHER delivered the following judgment: