R v Buswell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Crim J1112-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 12 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 525/B/71 |
[1971] EWCA Crim J1112-3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Phillimore
Mr. Justice Park
and
Mr. Justice Griffiths
No. 525/B/71
MR. J. ALEXANDER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. H. WILSON appeared on behalf of the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE; This is an appeal against conviction by the certificate of the Deputy Recorder. The Appellant appeared at Reading Borough Quarter Sessions on 21st January, and after he had given his evidence, he was found guilty by the direction of the Deputy Recorder of unlawful possession of drugs contrary to section 1(1) of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, and he was conditionally-discharged for two years.
The learned Deputy Recorder gave a certificate stating that the case "raises the question of law whether, on the facts, admitted by the accused, his possession of the drugs was lawful or unlawful". It is that point we have to determine.
The facts were these. This Appellant was a drug addict. It appears that he was for a time under treatment in the Royal Berkshire Clinic, but then, I think in August of 1969, his treatment was trnasferred from the Clinic to his own doctor, a Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor from August onwards was prescribing certain weekly doses of amphetamine for the Appellant on a gradually decreasing scale. Indeed the treatment finally concluded in January of 1970.
Now, in the course of that treatment on the 11th November, Dr. Taylor prescribed 70 amphetamine tablets. We have not seen the actual prescription, but the doctor explained that he anticipated that the Appellant being an addict, would take them all in the course of the week following. It appears that the Appellant either put them or thought he put them in the pocket of his jeans which in turn he put in a drawer in his bedroom. Of course he took a few in the immediately succeeding days. Then on the 15th he discovered to his horror that his mother had been through his drawer and washed his jeans. He came to the conclusion - and there does not seem to be any doubt this was a genuine conclusion - that in washing his jeans, she had dissolved the balance of his supply, namely about 40 tablets. So he went back to Dr. Taylor and explained what had happened or what he believed to have happened and asked for a prescription to make good Ms loss. The doctor having checked the facts with the boy's rather, whoassured him the story was true, prescribed a new lot of 40 tablets to supplement the loss. So matters went on.
In September of 1970, months after the treatment had been completed, the Appellant, apparently at his mother's behest, started to clear out his drawer altogether, and in the course of so doing he found his missing tablets. He could not resist the temptation of taking some of them, and then the police had cause to make a search and they found that he had 18 still in his possession that he had not consumed. Hence this prosecution for being in unlawful possession of those tablets.
Of course this was an offence laid under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964, section 1 subsection (1)(a), which provides, after dealing with possible regulations, it shall not be lawful for a person to have in his possession a substance for the time being specified in the Schedule to this Act" - needless to say Amphetamines are specified in the Schedule - "unless - (a) it is in his possession by virtue of the issue of a prescription by a duly qualified medical practitioner or a registered dental practitioner for its administration by way of treatment to him, or to a person under his care".
What is said by the prosecution here and accepted by the Deputy Recorder who directed the jury to convict is this, it may be that when you got your original 70 under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v McCalla
...had with him the alleged offensive weapon." 13 In that case the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. 14 Chronologically we mention Buswell, (1972) 1 ER 75. It is, we think, unnecessary to deal in any detail with the facts. They concerned the alleged unlawful possession of drugs. T......
-
R v Martindale
...matter on that basis, because what was not drawn to the attention of the Court in Russell was an earlier decision of this Court, namely, R. v. Buswell (1972) 1 All E.R. 75. It is only necessary for me to read a passage on page 78 of that report to illustrate how, had the decision been broug......
-
Atkins v DPP
...Mr Davies invites our attention to three authorities in particular � R v Hussain [1972] Cr.App.R.143, R v Steele [1993] Crim.L.R. 298, and R v Buswell [1972] 1 AllER 75. Hussain and Steele both concerned the possession of firearms without a certificate which the court decided was an absolut......
-
R v Leroy Jolie
...the defendant currently knew where the offending article was? What if he may have forgotten where he had put it? As to that, in Buswell [1972] 1 WLR 64, a case concerned with unauthorised possession of drugs, Phillimore LJ said at 67 C – "If you have got it in your custody and you put it in......
-
‘Possession is only ninth tenths of the law’. What constitutes the final ingredient to ‘have’ a blade ‘with him’ in a public place? R v Henderson [2016] EWCA Crim 965
...vehicle. He argued that he did not ‘have [the weapon] with him’ for the purposes of s. 1 Preventionof Crime Act 1953. Citing Buswell [1972] 1 All E.R. 75 and Martindale [1986] 84. Cr. App. R. 31, theCourt reminded itself of the principles of ‘possession’ in relation to controlled drugs. In ......