Anthony Seymour v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKPC 59 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 30 of 2006 |
| Date | 05 November 2007 |
[2007] UKPC 59
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[Delivered by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers]
Introduction
On 14 March 2002 the appellant went to the emergency department of the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Bermuda. His heart was racing and his blood pressure was raised. He told the staff that he had swallowed 19 bags of heroin. During the course of the next two days two operations were performed on the appellant that removed a total of 18 wrapped pellets of heroin from his body. These amounted to 112.8 grams of heroin with a street value in Bermuda of $518,180. The appellant had booked a flight to Miami, Florida, where his wife lived. He went to hospital because he was taken ill as a result of one pellet escaping from its wrapping. It was the prosecution case that he intended to take the drugs to Miami and then sell them.
The appellant was arrested by the police and, in due course, indicted on two counts. The first was of importing a controlled drug contrary to section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 ("MDA"). The second was of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to section 6(3) of the same Act. At the start of the trial the appellant made a formal admission pursuant to section 30 of the Evidence Act 1905 that he had been in possession of 112.88 grams of heroin. At the end of the prosecution case he submitted that there was no case to answer on either count. The prosecution did not resist the submission in respect of the first count, for there was no evidence that the appellant had imported the drugs.
The judge rejected the submission in respect of the second count, and the jury convicted the defendant on this count. He challenged the judge's ruling before the Court of Appeal of Bermuda, without success. He renews that challenge before their Lordships.
The appellant was convicted on 19 March 2004 and sentenced to a term of 13 years imprisonment.
The Misuse of Drugs Act
Because of the approach of the Court of Appeal to the construction of section 6(3) of MDA it is helpful to set out the whole of sections 4 to 11 of the Act:
"Importation and exportation of controlled drugs
4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall-
(a) import a controlled drug; or
(b) export a controlled drug.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply –
(a) to the importation or exportation of a controlled drug which is for the time being excepted from paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) by regulations under section 12: or
(b) to the importation or exportation of a controlled drug under and in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Minister and in compliance with any conditions attached thereto.
(3) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person to import or export a controlled drug in contravention of subsection (1).
Production and supply of controlled drugs
5(1) Subject to any regulations under section 12 for the time being in force, no person shall –
(a) produce a controlled drug; or
(b) supply or offer to supply a controlled drug to another.
(2) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person –
(a) to produce a controlled drug in contravention of subsection (1); or
(b) to be concerned in the production of such a drug in contravention of that subsection by another.
(3) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person –
(a) to supply or offer to supply a controlled drug to another in contravention of subsection (1); or
(b) to be concerned in the supplying of such a drug to another in contravention of that subsection; or
(c) to be concerned in the making to another in contravention of that subsection of an offer to supply such a drug.
Possession of controlled drugs
6 (1) Subject to any regulations under section 12 for the time being in force, no person shall have a controlled drug in his possession.
(2) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession in contravention of subsection (1).
(3) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, which is intended, whether by him or some other person, for supply in contravention of section 5(1).
Handling of controlled drugs
7 (1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly handles a controlled drug which is intended, whether by him or some other person, for supply in contravention of section 5(1).
(2) A person handles a controlled drug for the purposes of this section if –
(a) he is any way concerned in carrying, removing, harbouring, keeping or concealing the controlled drug or anything containing the controlled drug; or
(b) he deals in any manner with the controlled drug.
Misuse of controlled drugs
8(1) No person shall misuse a controlled drug.
(2) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person to misuse a controlled drug in contravention of subsection (1).
Possession of pipe, equipment or apparatus
9(1) No person shall have in his possession any pipe, equipment or apparatus fit and intended for use in connection with the misuse of a controlled drug or the preparation of any such drug for misuse.
(2) Subject to Section 29, it is an offence for a person to have in his possession a pipe, equipment or apparatus in contravention of subsection (1).
Acts preparatory to importation or supply of controlled drugs
10(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to do any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under section 4( 3) or 5(3).
(2) Subject to section 29, it is an offence for a person to do an act preparatory to the commission of an offence under section 4( 3) or 5(3).
Cultivation of cannabis plant
11 (1) Subject to any regulations under section 12 for the time being in force, no person shall cultivate any plant of the genus Cannabis.
(2) Subject to section 29, it is an offence to cultivate any such plant in contravention of subsection (1)."
Section 12 gives the Minister power, among other things, to authorise the possession or supply of controlled drugs in specified circumstances. Section 27 lays down the penalties in relation to offences under the Act. For offences under sections 4, 5, 6(3), 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 the maximum sentence for imprisonment on indictment is life imprisonment. A first offence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Shabbir Hussain
...be in contravention of section 4(1) of the 1971 Act because that provision is of territorial effect within the United Kingdom only (see R v Seymour [2008] 1 AC 713). 12 The first point relating to transfer to the courier is clearly made good by what was said by Lord Keith in the McGuinness ......
- Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland
-
DPP v Perry Wharrie
...1998/15/5319 DPP v LACEY UNREP CCA 3.7.2002 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S1(2) R v SEARLE 1971 CLR 593 DPP v FOLEY 1995 1 IR 267 R v SEYMOUR 2008 1 AC 713 R v HUSSEIN 2011 1 QB 1 DPP v CRONIN (NO.2) 2006 4 IR 329 DPP v VAN ONZEN & HOOPMANS 1996 2 ILRM 387 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S20 Crimina......
-
DPP v Wharrie
...1977 did not prohibit the sale or supply of drugs outside the State itself. He cited English authority to this effect (see R v. Seymour [2008] 1 AC 713 and R v. Hussein [2011] 1 QB 1). 11 On this, the Court ruled, at paragraph 125: ‘This contention was not made at the trial. On this basis a......