DPP v Doot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Crim J0505-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 181/B/72 No. 200/B/72 No. 204/B/72 No. 209/B/72 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 05 May 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Crim J0505-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Stephenson
Mr. Justice Cusack
and
Mr. Justice Forbes
No. 181/B/72
No. 199/B/72
No. 200/B/72
No. 204/B/72
No. 209/B/72
MR. G. BEST appeared on behalf of the Appellant Shannahan.
MR. I. HILL, Q.C. and MR. NUNS for MR. I. KENNEDY appeared on behalf of the other Appellants.
MR. C.J. WHYBROW for SIR JOSEPH MOLONY. Q.C. and MR. M. TUCKER appeared on behalf of the Crown.
In the absence of the other members of the Court on circuit, with their consent and with the permission of the Lord Chief Justice, I now give the following judgment of the Court.
At the Hampshire Assises holden at Winchester last December, these five Appellants were charged in an indictment containing four counts. On the first count all five were charged with "conspiring to import Dangerous Drugs", the particulars of which were that they "on divers days between the 1st day of January and the 15th day of August, 1971, in Hampshire and elsewhere conspired together with J.B. Evans and with other persons unknown fraudulently to evade the prohibition imposed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, on the importation of a dangerous drug, namely cannabis resin, into the United Kingdom".
A second count charged the Appellant Loving with "importing prohibited goods, contrary to section 304 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952", the particulars of which were that he "on the 6th day of August 1971, in Hampshire, was in relation to certain goods, namely 64 kilogrammes of cannabis resin knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation imposed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965".
A third count charged the Appellants Watts and Pay with an exactly similar offence, except that the number of kilogrammes of cannabis resin was 65. A fourth count charged the Appellants Doot and Shannahan with a similar offence committed between the 1st and 15th days of August 1971, in the County of Kent in relation to a much smaller amount of dangerous drugs, namely 138 grams of cannabis resin and 247 grams of cannabis.
On 8th December Loving pleaded guilty to the second count and Watts and Fay to the third count. On 13th December Doot pleaded guilty to the fourth count. On 14th December, after Mr. Justice Lawson had ruled against all the Appellants that the Court had jurisdiction to try the first count, all the Appellants, except Shannahan, pleaded guilty to that count without prejudice to their contention that the Court had no jurisdiction to try it. On 15th December the jury convicted the Appellant Shannahan on the first and fourth counts. All were sentenced to imprisonment, except Fay who was fined, and all were recommended for deportation.
All (including Shannahan) appeal against their convictions on the first count on a ground which involved a question of mixed law and fact on which the learned Judge certified under section 1(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968, that the case was fit for appeal, namely "whether, upon the facts proved by the prosecution there was any offence of conspiracy within the jurisdiction of the Court of Trial". Shannahan appeals against his conviction on the fourth count also on grounds only one of which was pursued on his behalf by Mr. Best: "that the learned Judge failed to explain to the jury the meaning of the phrase 'knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation…'." He also applies for leave to appeal against sentence.
On 27th and 28th March we heard Mr. Hill's submissions on behalf of the last four Appellants, which were adopted by Mr. Best for Shannahan, on the question of jurisdiction, Sir Joseph Molony's submissions for the Crown and Mr. Best's submission in support of Shannahan's appeal against conviction on the fourth count and of his application. We allowed all the appeals against conviction on the first count, dismissed Shannahan's appeal against his conviction on the fourth count and refused his application for leave to appeal against his sentence on that count. The sentences of imprisonment and the Appellant Pay's fine on the first count had also to be quashed. The Appellant Pay has paid his fines and returned to the United States of America. All the remaining sentences of imprisonment on the substantive counts have already been served and the recommendations for deportation to the United States of America will, we hope, soon be put into effect. We now give our reasons for holding that the Judge's ruling was wrong, for answering the question certified by the Judge in the negative and for quashing the convictions and sentences for conspiracy, and for dismissing Shannahan's further appeal and application. We also intimated that we were of opinion that our decision on the certified question involved a point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the House of Lords and that we would grant leave to appeal under section 33(2).
All the subjects are Americancitizens, but if they had been British subjects our decision would have been no different. For the question of law raised by this appeal is whether a conspiracy entered into outside England to commit a crime in England is triable by an English Court, or whether those who make an agreement outside English territory to do something unlawful in English territory cannot be tried in England when they come here, even if they do something unlawful here in pursuance of the agreement. It was admitted by the Crown and by all the Appellants, except Shannahan - and there was ample evidence against him which the jury accepted -that the conspiracy charged in the first count was formed outside England, either in Belgium or in Morocco, and that all (including J.B. Evans) who were named in the indictment were parties to the agreement constituting the conspiracy, at latest when Loving, Watts and Pay left Tangier with their loads of cannabis resin on 3rd August by car ferry for the port of Southampton.
The statement made by all the Appellants except Shannahan -who said that his experience as a legal stenographer had led him to believe that people got themselves into trouble by answering questions and making statements, and so kept silence - indicated that their plan was to procure cannabis in Morocco and import it into the United States of America through England and Canada secreted in the wooden bases of sleeping beds specially constructed inside Volkswagen vans. Recruited by Doot in the United States of America and joined by J.B. Evans in Europe on the other side of the English Channel, they bought vansthere and got a carpenter in Belgium to make the beds, Shannahan playing a leading part in getting them made and paying for them. They travelled to Morocco separately, keeping in touch by messages left at American Express Offices en route. They met in Morocco where they collected the cannabis, packed it in cellophane, sprayed it with varnish to suppress the smell and concealed it in vans run by Loving and by Watts and Pay. How many other vans there were was in doubt; certainly others were planned and J.B. Evans succeeded in getting one other into Southampton and out of Liverpool towards the end of July without being discovered. Loving with 64 kilogrammes of cannabis resin concealed in the bed in his van (the subject of the second count) and Watts and Pay with 65 kilogrammes concealed in the bed in theirs (the subject of the third count), arrived at Southampton on 5th August. Watts and Fay cleared their van through the Customs, called at the American Express Office in London for a message and left one there for Loving, and went to Liverpool intending to embark there for Canada.
But on 6th August, Customs Officers at Southampton examined Loving's van, discovered the 64 kilogrammes of cannabis resin, suspected that Watts and Pay's van might also have imported cannabis, traced it to Liverpool and there examined it when about to be shipped on 10th August and discovered the further consignment of cannabis resin. As a result of their inquiries, Customs Officers kept a watch at the American Express Office in the Haymarket in London, and on 14th August interviewed Loot and Shannahan there, examined their van and, though they found nothing in the wooden bed, they discovered 138 grams of cannabis resin and 247 grams of cannabis in a polythene container and a tobacco pouch under the bed just in front of the engine and in a carrier bag on the passenger's side of the cab. These two had arrived at Lover from Ostend on 13th August. This cannabis (the subject of the fourth count), was not alleged to be imported in pursuance of the conspiracy charged in the first count.
The submissions made on behalf of the Appellants to the Judge and to us was that the criminal jurisdiction of the Courts of this. country is confined to offences which are completed within its borders; that the offence of conspiracy consists in making an unlawful agreement and is both committed and completed at the time of making, forming or entering into the agreement; and that the offence alleged in the first count was accordingly committed at latest in Tangier outside the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country. Alternatively, if the conspiracy charged was a continuing offence, it was completed when the cannabis was imported (that is to say, when the ship carrying the cannabis came within the limits of the port of Southampton; Customs and Excise Act, 1952, section 79(2)(a)) and so was then spent, with the result that it could not be revived or regarded as continuing simply by particularising the conspiracy as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Kemp
-
R v Reilly
...the conspiracy still then being in existence. If authority is needed for that, it will be found in the decision of the House of Lords in D.P.P. v. Doot (1973) 2 WLR 532. That case was concerned with a conspiracy which had been made abroad, in the sense that the agreement had been made outsi......
-
Attorney General v Oldridge
... ... 1974 IR 378 WILSON V SHEEHAN 1979 IR 423 SCOTT V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER 1975 AC 819 O'SULLIVAN V CONROY UNREP BARR 31.7.1997 1998/29/11761 MCCAULEY & MCCUTCHEON ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY MYLES V SREENAN 1999 4 IR 294 R V MURPHY 1837 8 CNP 297 R V DOOT 1973 AC 807 Synopsis Extradition Extradition; respondent had been charged in the United States with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud after money had been fraudulently obtained from three banks; grant of extradition had been refused by the District Court because District ... ...
-
R v Neal
... ... 24 We are satisfied that it was inserted by the draftsman with the intention of casting his net as widely as words enabled him - note his language, "in any person" and "in any way". This was the view of Lord Salmon expressed in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doot and Others ... (1973) A. C. 807 ... At page 830 Lord Salmon was discussing the construction of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, but for all material purposes that is re-enacted in similar language in the present Act. He said: "Section 304" -and I interpolate to say that that is the equivalent of ... ...