R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.
Gonthier and Binnie JJ., joined by McLachlin CJ. with Iacobucci, Major, and Bastarache JJ.
Concur/dissent
Arbour J.
Concur/dissent
LeBel J.
Concur/dissent
Deschamp J.
This case is the final of a trilogy of cases regarding the constitutionality of the prohibition of marijuana.
BackgroundEdit
Clay was a 26-year-old owner of "The Great Canadian Hemporium" in London, Ontario where he held many hemp related products. He was caught selling marijuana plant cuttings to an undercover police officer and was charged under the former Narcotics Control Act.
Clay argued that his Charter rights were violated by the Narcotics Control Act's prohibition of possession of marijuana. At trial and appeal the claim was dismissed.
Opinion of the CourtEdit
The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed.
The opinion of the Court was given by McLachlin C.J. Arbour, LeBel, and Deschamps JJ. each gave dissenting opinions.
It has been well established, McLachlin claimed, that the risk of imprisonment creates a violation of an accused's liberty and security of person under section 7. However, in this case it is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The purpose of the section is to protect the "core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal". Smoking marijuana, it is held, is not included.
McLachlin then considered the claim of whether the law was "overbroad" as in R. v. Heywood. She found that the law is not grossly disproportionate to the interest of the government to avoid harm caused directly or indirectly by the use of the drug, citing operation of motor vehicles or other complex machinery as sufficient dangers to warrant prohibition. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence that looser prohibition would be as effective.
McLachlin dismissed the argument that the term "narcotic" in the act was ambiguous and could be read to exclude the cuttings as there was no THC in it.
clay, 2003, 2003, decision, supreme, court, canada, constitutionality, prohibition, possess, marijuana, accused, claimed, that, section, charter, rights, were, violated, court, dismissed, claim, supreme, court, canadahearing, 2003, judgment, december, 2003full. R v Clay 2003 3 S C R 735 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated The Court dismissed the claim R v ClaySupreme Court of CanadaHearing May 6 2003 Judgment December 23 2003Full case nameChristopher James Clay v Her Majesty The QueenCitations 2003 3 S C R 735 2003 SCC 75Court membershipChief Justice Beverley McLachlinPuisne Justices Charles Gonthier Frank Iacobucci John C Major Michel Bastarache Ian Binnie Louise Arbour Louis LeBel Marie DeschampsReasons givenMajorityGonthier and Binnie JJ joined by McLachlin CJ with Iacobucci Major and Bastarache JJ Concur dissentArbour J Concur dissentLeBel J Concur dissentDeschamp J This case is the final of a trilogy of cases regarding the constitutionality of the prohibition of marijuana Background EditClay was a 26 year old owner of The Great Canadian Hemporium in London Ontario where he held many hemp related products He was caught selling marijuana plant cuttings to an undercover police officer and was charged under the former Narcotics Control Act Clay argued that his Charter rights were violated by the Narcotics Control Act s prohibition of possession of marijuana At trial and appeal the claim was dismissed Opinion of the Court EditThe Court held that the appeal should be dismissed The opinion of the Court was given by McLachlin C J Arbour LeBel and Deschamps JJ each gave dissenting opinions It has been well established McLachlin claimed that the risk of imprisonment creates a violation of an accused s liberty and security of person under section 7 However in this case it is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice The purpose of the section is to protect the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal Smoking marijuana it is held is not included McLachlin then considered the claim of whether the law was overbroad as in R v Heywood She found that the law is not grossly disproportionate to the interest of the government to avoid harm caused directly or indirectly by the use of the drug citing operation of motor vehicles or other complex machinery as sufficient dangers to warrant prohibition Furthermore there was no convincing evidence that looser prohibition would be as effective McLachlin dismissed the argument that the term narcotic in the act was ambiguous and could be read to exclude the cuttings as there was no THC in it External links Editappellant s factum Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title R v Clay amp oldid 685894340, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
