Dr. Creighton, A Companion Frank Caddedu And The Deceased Kimberley Ann
1417 Words6 Pages
Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.
With the permission of the deceased, the appellant injected a quantity of cocaine into her forearm. The deceased promptly began…show more content… Also, they challenged it under Section 7 under The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which states the rights for life, liberty and personal security. The Crown argued that it wasn’t trafficking a narcotic substance and that it was actually manslaughter. Since, the appellant negligently gave the victim the narcotics, which ultimately killed her. This case made it to The Supreme Court. Once the appellant appealed his conviction of manslaughter that he received at the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18th, 1990, which sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. The Crown defined manslaughter in Section 222 ( 5 ) of The Criminal Code, which states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being means of an unlawful act or an act of negligence. However, when The Defense challenged this section due to the unique circumstances of this case that caused this case it to go to The Supreme Court of Canada since the Defense also said that it was in conflict with Section 7 of the Charter. In conclusion, the Defense we’re trying to dispute the fact that the accused committed manslaughter.
Marc Creighton is being charged with section 222 (5)(a) under the Code. The unlawful act in question was trafficking of narcotics. “Traffic” in this instance is being defined as administering cocaine which is found under Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Then known as the Narcotic Control Act).
The issue at hand is a Charter issue. Marc