The appellants appealed from an order setting aside acquittals on charges of importing cannabis and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a drug-smuggling vessel entered Canadian waters allegedly because of mechanical failure and deteriorating weather.
The Court recognized necessity as a common law excuse preserved by s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code, grounded in moral involuntariness and limited to situations of imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative, and proportionality.
The Court held that the trial judge erred in the jury charge by failing to direct attention to the availability of a legal alternative, which justified a new trial.
It also rejected the botanical defence, holding that the phrase “Cannabis sativa L.” in the Narcotic Control Act was intended to include all marihuana, with the technical term’s meaning fixed at enactment.
The appeals were dismissed.
