The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after being caught with over 7 kilograms of the substance.
The accused admitted the elements of the offence but raised the defence of necessity, arguing he intended to distribute the heroin safely and at cost to addicts to prevent fentanyl overdoses and combat the opioid crisis.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the defence of necessity had no air of reality.
The court held that the perceived danger to addicts was not imminent within the meaning of the jurisprudence, and the accused had reasonable legal alternatives to effect change, such as constitutional challenges or political advocacy.
The accused was found guilty.
