Summary

Keywords

Criminal law - Defences - Criminal law - Defences - Entrapment - Dial-a-dope schemes - Whether the defence of entrapment was made out in the circumstances of this case - Application of R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2012, the police received a tip from a tipster unknown to them, that a person called “Romeo” would answer the cell phone at the number provided and sell drugs. Without further investigation, an undercover officer called the number and Mr. Ahmad answered. After a quick exchange, and after calling the undercover officer back, Mr. Ahmad and the officer agreed on a price and a time and place to meet. The drugs were sold and Mr. Ahmad was arrested. At trial, Mr. Ahmad conceded that if he was found to be in possession, then he was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and he conceded that the drug was cocaine. The only issue to be decided was whether he had knowledge and control of the drugs. On that issue, Mr. Ahmad implied in his testimony that it was a friend of his, not he, who had sold the drugs to the undercover officer. The trial judge did not find Mr. Ahmad credible, and she found him guilty as charged. Mr. Ahmad then applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment. The application judge refused to grant a stay on the basis that the police officer had acquired the requisite reasonable suspicion at the time Mr. Ahmad said “What do you need?” In her view, the conversation up until that point constituted legitimate investigative steps and had not reached the point of an opportunity to commit an offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It agreed that the defence of entrapment had not been made out, and that the trial judge had not erred in her credibility analysis by using Mr. Ahmad’s silence against him and by making inconsistent findings of fact