R v Delgado
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE SKINNER |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Crim J1121-6 |
| Docket Number | No. 3543/C/82 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 21 November 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Crim J1121-6
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Skinner
and
Mr. Justice McCowan
No. 3543/C/82
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. M. HOPMEIR appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MRS. L. STERN appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 24th June 1982 at the Inner London Crown Court before Judge West- Russell, this appellant pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing two counts. The first charged him with possession of cannabis with intent to supply to another contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the second charged simple possession of the same amount of cannabis contrary to section 5(2) of the same Act. Early in the trial he changed his plea from not guilty to guilty on count 2, and subsequently he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on that.
The appellant himself gave evidence at his trial and at the conclusion of his evidence, at the invitation of both counsel, the Judge ruled that accepting the appellant's evidence, he had no defence in law to the charge in count 1. Thereupon on counsel's advice, the appellant changed his plea to guilty on that count and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
He now appeals against his conviction by leave of the full Court, though, since the appeal raises a point of law, leave was strictly unnecessary.
The facts are these. On Sunday 3rd January 1982, some time in the late afternoon, the appellant was being driven in a minicab from an address in the East End to Trafalgar Avenue off the Old Kent Road. He had with him a holdall. Inside the holdall was a carrier bag. The carrier bag contained 6.31 kilogrammes of cannabis wrapped in 1 lb packages the street value of which was estimated to be at least £15,000.
The cab was stopped by a police officer, solely because it was not displaying a vehicle excise licence. Immediately it was stopped, the appellant showed signs of extreme distress and ran away leaving the holdall in the car. He was arrested very shortly afterwards.
Initially he said that he had found the drugs. Subsequently he gave the story which he repeated to the jury, which was that he was transporting the cannabis for two friends named Rowland and Judah. At the trial he enlarged on this. He said that he had met Rowland and Judah who were acquaintances, earlier that day at Hackney. They had told him that they had stolen the cannabis. He said they told him they did not have anywhere to keep it and asked him to keep the bag for a few hours. Later he said they asked him to look after it for them for a couple of hours. He said that he had arranged to deliver the cannabis to them at 5 o'clock that afternoon in an amusement arcade near Brockwell Park. He was on his way there when he was arrested. When he was asked what he was going to get out of it, he said they told him they would give him a piece of cannabis for himself to smoke. Pressed about how much he expected, he said it could have been an ounce. That was the extent of his involvement, so he said, and he was adamant that he was not concerned with the disposal of the cannabis after he had re-delivered it to Rowland and Judah.
After hearing counsel's submissions the Judge ruled that the returning of the drugs to the "owners", in other words to Rowland and Judah, was an act of supplying, and since on the appellant's own evidence he had kept possession with that intent, his evidence amounted to an admission of the offence. It was at that point that he changed his plea.
Counsel for the appellant now argues that that ruling by the learned Judge was wrong. He submits that the Act was not directed against an offence of this kind. It was directed solely against the supply to what he describes as third parties, and he seeks to define the word "supply" in the relevant subsection as the act of providing drugs to a person who has no ownership or control over the goods.
He relies upon the extended definition of "possession" afforded by section 37(3) of the Act, which reads: "For the purposes of this Act, things which a person has in his possession shall be taken to include anything subject to his control which is in the custody of another." He says that to supply by passing possession to somebody who already by the statute has possession involves a totally unrealistic concept. In support of his argument he cited to us the unreported decision of this Court in Greenfield, which was decided on 28th February 1983.
That was a case in which the appellant was looking after drugs for the owner who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mr Losali v Public Prosecutor
-
R v Maginnis
...that they believed that they perceived a conflict between two earlier decisions of that court. These two decisions were Reg. v. Delgado [1984] 1 W.L.R. 89 and Reg. v. Dempsey The Times, 22 November 1985, The Times, 22 November 1985. In Reg. v. Delgado the accused had been a passenger in a m......
-
Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council; Pabo Ltd v Same
... ... Rees v Munday [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 1284 , DC, R v Delgado [ 1984 ] 1 WLR 89 , CA and R v Maginnis [ 1987 ]A C 303 ,HL(E) considered. The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court: Devon County Councilv DB Cars Ltd [ 2001 ] EWHC Admin 521 ; 166 JP 38 ,D C Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [ 2004 ] UKHL 30 ;[ 2004 ] 2 AC 557 ;[ 2004 ] 3 ... ...
-
R v Maginnis
...not enough to infect the appellant with an intent to supply. That point was not raised before us. 6 The second decision is Delgado, (1983) 78 Cr. App. R. 175. In that case the appellant was convicted of possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply. He had been found conveying a holdal......