R. V. Yates Case Report Re: Controlled Drugs And Substances Act

R. v. Yates - Case Report Re: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: Section 5(1) Trafficking Offense.

Written by: John Paddit Langara - Introduction to Legal Institutions in Canada.

Final Writing Assignment Professor Murray Mollard

Introduction- Before entering the Vancouver Provincial Courthouse on February 1st, I looked through the current public access adult court list to pinpoint potential court proceedings I wished to attend. Through some research, I accessed a government website containing a PDF document known as the JUSTIN Code table, explaining all the abbreviated terminology found on the list. This included details such as Plea, Elec, age, Rsn, I/C, and counsel, among others. After selecting some potential trials, I specifically

Yates was convicted of engaging in the unlawful trafficking of cocaine through telecommunications with an undisclosed individual, and also orchestrating the transactions and determining the drop-off point. This process is also called dial dope. She was caught hiding an orange ball-shaped container containing approximately 12 grams of cocaine, valued at around $40, concealed in the tire hub of a car. A bit more information regarding this transaction, supposedly, Yates contacted the undisclosed individual twice because she forgot to inform him of the drop-off point's location. The Crown counsel also emphasized that this wasn’t Lorna Yates’ first drug trafficking and possession offense, citing cases in 1999, 2000, and October 2019, for which she was found guilty. However, upon further research and investigation using the CSO website, Yates' criminal record only reveals charges related to CCC 320.13(1) (Dangerous operation of a conveyance), CCC 320.17 (Flight from police), and CCC 145(5)(a) (Breach of release order). No signs of other drug trafficking violations. There may have been an error on my part, or I might have misheard the statement made by the Crown due to his soft-spoken voice. The Crown counsel

Yates was trafficking was cocaine, which is classified in Schedule II. According to subsection (1)(3) (a), the possible penalty for trafficking Schedule II substances is a conviction that renders the individual guilty and liable to imprisonment for life. The severity of the charge underlines the gravity of engaging in such illicit drug-related activities. Ms. Yates employed the "dial-a-dope" methodology to facilitate her drug transactions, a practice where individuals can contact a drug dealer via phone call or message to arrange the purchase of illicit substances such as cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. This approach provides a discreet and convenient means for buyers to obtain drugs without engaging in direct, face-to-face interactions. In a "dial-a-dope" scenario, clients typically communicate with the dealer to specify the desired quantity and type of drugs, and then agree on a location for the exchange, often in public spaces like parking lots or street corners. This is similar to the situation involving Ms. Yates, where an orange ball of cocaine was concealed in the tire hub during the exchange. In 2016, a case with similarities to a "dial-a-dope" trafficking prosecution, R. v. Jordan, established a precedent regarding drug trafficking. This case emphasized that, even for serious drug-related offenses, an unjustifiable and prolonged delay in bringing the case to trial cannot be justified R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2016] 1