Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Date | 01 October 1974 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837403800406 |
| Published date | 01 October 1974 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council
UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION
OF
DRUGS
D.P.P. v. Brooks
IN this case, the quashing of the respondent's conviction by the
Court
of Appeal of Jamaica was brought on appeal by special
leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A van
had
been discovered by the police in a lay-by near an airstrip. Its engine
was running. As the police approached, the respondent, who was
in the driving seat, ran away, as did several other men who were
inside the van.
The
respondent was caught and was charged with
unlawfully having
ganja
in his possession, contrary to the Danger-
ous Drugs Law, which provides
that
"every person who
.....
has
in his possession any
....
ganja
.....
shall be guilty of an offence."
At the trial, it was proved
that
there were, in the body of the van,
which was neither accessible from the cab, nor visible to anyone
in the cab, nineteen sacks of ganja.
The
respondent argued
that
he
had
not been in possession of the ganja, in
that
it
had
not been
shown
that
he
had had
more than mere custody or charge of the
van
and
its contents.
The
Court of Appeal in
Jamaica
followed its
earlier decision in R. v. Livingston (1952, 6
I.L.R.
95) as correctly
laying down what knowledge the accused must have of the identity
of the substance as ganja, before an offence against the law can
be said to be established.
It
was argued
that
the pronouncement of
the House of Lords in R. v. Warner (1969, 2 A.C. 256) with
regard to proof of knowledge, when possession is alleged, must now
prevail. But the Judicial Committee held
that
"the
question of
what are the mental elements required to constitute acriminal
offence of having in one's possession aprohibited substance is a
finely balanced one", turning on the particular provisions, and the
policy, of the Act creating the offence.
The
Board therefore refused
to regard Livingston's case, which
had
been the foundation of
Jamaican law for over twenty years, as overruled by the pronounce-
ments of the House of Lords in interpreting different legislation.
299
To continue reading
Request your trial