Archive for February 6th, 2006
« Previous EntriesREGINA vs. SMITH Part 10
Monday, February 6th, 2006revision 2003/09/10.
Q All right.
A So it is from 2003.
Q Okay. Could you turn to ?? so is this currently in effect, this standard operating procedure?
A For this ?? yes, I ?? without actually having read it to see if there any changes I ?? it most likely is, yes.
Q All right. First I’m going to [...]
REGINA vs SMITH Part 9
Monday, February 6th, 2006A Generally they are they are rare because what usually we do is most of our samples as cannabis type samples come in as plant or a dark substance called resin, and they are or oils even. They are usually run using different techniques so we don’t usually run them on the [...]
Regina vs. SMITH Part 8
Monday, February 6th, 2006kilograms. And in that sense I think there is some surplusage in that it doesn’t really add anything to the count.
If I suppose if if somehow the Crown were to allege that there were three you know, a dozen pounds of marihuana then that might be a problem if we had [...]
REGINA vs. SMITH Part 7
Monday, February 6th, 2006aragraph?
MR. MOORE-STEWART: One forty-one.
That just simply reads:
Having rejected the appellants’ contention that Parliament is without authority to criminalize conduct unless it causes harm to others, as well as their claim that criminalization of marihuana is arbitrary and irrational, we proceed to the next level of their argument, namely that even if it is not [...]
REGINA vs SMITH Part 6
Monday, February 6th, 2006as to prevent the associated harm and to eliminate the market for traffickers. In light of these findings of fact it cannot be said that the prohibition on marihuana possession is arbitrary or irrational, although the wisdom of the prohibition and its related penalties is always open to reconsideration by Parliament itself.
REGINA vs. SMITH Part 5
Monday, February 6th, 2006describing the penalty might not be of any force and effect, and allow Parliament to make amendments to it to bring it back within the confines of the Constitution and the Charter.
REGINA vs. SMITH Part 4
Monday, February 6th, 2006the very fact that Canada itself recognizes medical marihuana and provides a regime for it. It is recognized as part of the pharmacopoeia. It is recognized that it is a wellness promoter, at least for certain classes of people.
REGINA vs. SMITH Part 3
Monday, February 6th, 2006MR. FOWLER: The Crown has a total of four witnesses, two of those are police officers; one is a retired police officer; the other is a civilian.
THE COURT: What is the Crown’s estimate of leading the evidence in chief?
MR. FOWLER: I would think it would be reasonably brief. I had estimated [...]
Regina vs. Smith Part 2
Monday, February 6th, 2006THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can understand why quantum ?? quantification would be necessary in that case, but that is not this case, is it?
Extended EMR. MOORE-STEWART: It ?? it ?? it ??
REGINAv.LEON EDWARD SMITH Part 1
Monday, February 6th, 2006112476-2Victoria RegistryIn the Supreme Court of British Columbia(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D. WILSON) Victoria, B.C.September 29, 30, 2005October 12, 13, 2005
« Previous Entries