R v Josephs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Crim J0222-10 |
| Date | 22 February 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2457/C/76 |
[1977] EWCA Crim J0222-10
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Mr. Justice Caulfield
and
Mr. Justice Gibson
No. 2457/C/76
No. 2458/C/76
MR. R. PRICE appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. T. KING appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 14th April, 1976, after a long trial occupying nine days at the Inner London Crown Court, these two Appellants were each convicted of one offence under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, the characteristics of the offence being that, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly committed or suffered supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug to another. They were each sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and they appeal against conviction and sentence by leave of the single Judge.
The circumstances of the case were that during the night of the 30th August, 1975 the police visited premises known as 218 Queensbridge Road, London, E8, which belonged to the local council, but which was not occupied by the local council. Instead the Appellants ran in the basement of the premises what is called in these proceedings a card school. In a sense they were squatters; they were without authority as trespassers and in the basement there was this card school organised by the two Appellants.
Having carried out a raid on the premises, the police discovered and gave evidence of finding substantial quantities of cannabis, many of the packets of cannabis concerned being in the pocket of a Mr. Lawrence, who was also a codefendant and also received a sentence of three years' imprisonment.
But so far as the Appellants were concerned, they contended before the trial Judge, and duly contended before this Court, that they could not be found to be concerned in the management of any premises within the meaning of the section unless they had some kind of lawful title in the form of a lease, licence or something similar which gave them a legal right to the premises.
The argument put in detail before us today by Mr. Price, and as I understand it put with similar detail before the trial Judge, was that it was not sufficient to show these men were managing the premises merely to show that they were de facto managing the card school in the basement. Something more than that, it was contended, was necessary, and if I understand Mr. Price's argument, it does not really matter what the form of legal title was as long as there was some legal title which gave them a title in the property. It was contended that they were purely and simply trespassers who had walked in and started this card school.
In our judgment there is no such requirement. There is no principle affecting this offence which requires a person charged with the management of premises to have any sort of lawful title to be on the premises. If he is managing them in the sense he is running them, organising them and planning them, if he is doing all that, then the fact he has no right to it and is a mere squatter does not prevent him from coming within the terms of the section.
Much naturally depends on the form of direction given by the trial Judge, and for this purpose one must go to page 77 of the transcript and see what the trial Judge had to say on this matter. He says: "Now there are various matters of law which must be explained to you. They are fairly simple, I hope, to understand, and, you may think, based again on common sense. First, the prosecution must prove that one or both of these defendants – and, of course, you have got to consider their cases separately – were concerned in the management of the premises. Secondly, on the assumption that you are so satisfied, that they knowingly permitted or suffered the supply of cannabis, and they knowingly permitted that to happen on the premises.
"Let us deal with these matters one by one. First of all, you have got to be satisfied that they were concerned in the management of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Pamphill Prevost Simon Power Shawn Henry
...judge, and that the decision should be in favour of joint trial unless the risk of prejudice is unusually great. Thus in Josephs (1977) 65 Cr App R 253, where the same issue arose as in Lake (1976) 64 Cr App R 172, Lord Widgery CJ said (at p. 255, emphasis added): … it is a very rare thin......
-
Carter et Al v The State
...adjudication on the merits thereof, challenges to a trial court's decision on separate trial seldom result in reversal. In Josephs [1977] 65 Cr. App. R. 253, Lord Widgery, C.J. had the following to say: “… it is a very rare thing for this court to interfere with the trial judge's decision a......
-
The Queen v Pamphill Prevost, Simon Power and Shawn Henry
...judge, and that the decision should be in favour of joint trial unless the risk of prejudice is unusually great. Thus in Josephs (1977) 65 Cr App R 253, where the same issue arose as in Lake (1976) 64 Cr App R 172, Lord Widgery, C.J. said (at p. 255, emphasis added): … it is a very rare t......
-
The Queen v Pamphill Prevost, Simon Power and Shawn Henry
...judge, and that the decision should be in favour of joint trial unless the risk of prejudice is unusually great. Thus in Josephs (1977) 65 Cr App R 253, where the same issue arose as in Lake (1976) 64 Cr App R 172, Lord Widgery, C.J. said (at p. 255, emphasis added): … it is a very rare t......