Dangerous Drugs
| Author | H. R. Balmer |
| Date | 01 May 1961 |
| Published date | 01 May 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6103400315 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
We are indebted to Mr. H. R. Balmer, O.B.E., Assistant Chief
Constable
of
Liverpool,for the following report.
Dangerous
Drugs
R. v. Onasanya
AN IMPORTANT RULING was given at Liverpool Crown Court on
November 21,
1960,
that mens rea is not an essential ingredient of
the offence of being an unauthorized person in possession of Indian
hemp.
The defendant, a Nigerian student, was charged with (i) Importing
Indian hemp into the United Kingdom without a licencegranted by
the Secretary of State, (Dangerous Drugs Act,
1951,
s. 1
(1»,
and
(ii)
Being an unauthorized person in possession of Indian hemp,
(Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1953, reg. 3).
The brief facts are that when his luggage was examined on his
arrival in the United Kingdom, the defendant was found by a
preventive officer of H.M. Customs to be in possession of 29 lbs.
10ozs. of Indian hemp, contained in six tins onto which the lids had
been soldered. The defendant denied all knowledge of the contents
of the tins and claimed that he had been asked to bring two crates,
which had contained the tins in question and other articles, to
England by a fellow Nigerian, to whom he had been introduced by
a friend and who had told him that the crates contained nothing but
food. All the circumstances suggested that the defendant was, in
fact, an innocent carrier of the drug and H.M. Customs decided
that they had insufficient evidence to charge him with knowingly
importing prohibited goods (Customs &Excise Act,
1952,
s. 304).
Onasanya was eventually charged by a police officer with being
an unauthorized person in possession
of
Indian hemp, it being
contended that possession alone is sufficient ground to constitute
this offence. The charge of importing the drug, contrary to the
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, s.l (I), was afterwards included in the
indictment.
At the trial the prosecutor did not contest the claim of the defence
that the defendant was an innocent carrier of the drug, but submitted
that the wording of the two charges before the court implied absolute
prohibition on importation and possession, whereas the defence
sought to submit that a certain amount of guilty knowledge on the
part of the defendant was necessary before he could be convicted of
228 May-June 1961
To continue reading
Request your trial