House of Lords
| Published date | 01 July 1969 |
| Date | 01 July 1969 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201836903300305 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House
of
Lords
MANAGEMENT OF PREMISES USED
FOR
SMOKING CANNABIS
Sweet
o.
Parsley
MISS Sweet, who resided in Oxford, let rooms in a nearby farm-
house, of which she was a sub-tenant.
Her
tenants were allowed
the common use of the kitchen. Though she retained the use
of
one
room for herself, she rarely stayed there overnight, being content to
visit the house from time to time, to collect letters
and
rents
and
to
see that, generally, all was well.
The
police went to the premises
with asearch
warrant
and
found in the garden certain receptacles
containing cannabis,
and
in the kitchen cigarette ends containing
cannabis
and
ahookah belonging to Miss Sweet which
had
(without
her
knowledge) been used for smoking cannabis. She was charged
with an offence against s.5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, which
enacts
that
"if
a
person-(a)
being the occupier
of
any premises,
permits those premises to be used for the purpose of smoking canna-
bis
.•.
or (b) is concerned in the management of any premises used
for any such purpose
...
he shall be guilty of
an
offence against this
Act".
The
justices found
that
she never entered the tenants' rooms
except on their invitation
and
that
she
had
no knowledge
that
the
house was being used for the purpose of smoking cannabis. But she
was convicted
and
fined,
and
that
conviction was upheld by the
Divisional Court (1968,2 Q.B. 418), on the ground
that
she
had
been
concerned in the management of the premises, since she was in a
position to choose her tenants, could keep them as long as she liked
and
could make it a term of their agreement
that
they
did
not smoke
cannabis.
The
vital point of the decision was, of course,
that
the
section created an absolute offence, so
that
the defendant's ignorance
of what went on was no defence.
This decision followed
Teandel
v.
Fisher
'(1966, 1
Q.B.
440; 29
].C.L. 262)
and
the Divisional Court refused a certificate
that
apoint
of
law of public importance was involved. There followed the
decision of the House of Lords in
Warner
v.
Metropolitan
Police
Com-
missioner
(1968, 2 W.L.R. 1303; 32 ].C.L. 257) to the effect
that
s.Iof
the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 creates an absolute offence
in penalising a person who has in his possession a substance pro-
188
To continue reading
Request your trial