R v Martindale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] EWCA Crim J0624-8 |
| Date | 24 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 436/E/86 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
[1986] EWCA Crim J0624-8
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Taylor
and
Mr. Justice Schiemann
No. 436/E/86
MR. J. HILL-BAKER appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. H.A. RICHARDS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 19th December 1985 in the Crown Court at Leeds, this applicant, Clive Martindale, pleaded not guilty to possessing a controlled drug (cannabis resin).
Submissions were made to the Judge at an early stage of the trial as to the proposed defence to be put forward by the applicant. After the Judge had heard those submissions he came to the conclusion, and so ruled, that the proposed defence could not amount to a valid defence to the charge. The result was that the applicant then pleaded guilty and was conditionally discharged for twelve months for the offence.
He now applies for an extension of time of one day, which we have granted, and he also applies for leave to appeal against his conviction.
The facts of the case are simple and are these. On 11th July last year the police in Bradford mounted an operation in connection with the possession of drugs. As a result of that operation the applicant was stopped, because the police suspected that he might be in possession of a controlled drug. He was consequently searched.
In a leather wallet, which was in his pocket, was found a small quantity, 366 milligrammes to be precise, of cannabis resin. He was cautioned. He was asked what the substance was, and he replied, "Blow, but I didn't know it was there". He was then taken to the police station and interviewed. He said that the substance had been given to him in Canada some two years previously. He did not smoke cannabis and he did not know that it was in his wallet.
The submissions to which reference has already been made were these. Counsel for the applicant said that that would be the defence, namely that the applicant had been given the cannabis some little while before whilst he was living in Canada. He then came to this country and that small quantity of cannabis stayed in his wallet. The submission was that he did not know he had it when he came back to this country. It had gone completely out of his mind.
Having heard argument, the learned Judge ruled that it was immaterial when the applicant acquired the drug, or indeed where he acquired it. The mere fact that he got it outside of the jurisdiction was neither here nor there. That part of the Judge's ruling is now conceded to be correct. The ground based upon its acquisition in Canada is abandoned. He knew, said the Judge, what the substance was, he had kept it and he was in possession of it even if he had forgotten its existence.
Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Hill-Baker, has repeated those submissions before this Court. His contention is this. Although the applicant had admittedly been given the cannabis in Canada and had put it in his wallet where it remained ever since, nevertheless, it is submitted, that was two years or more previous to the arrest. In the meantime the applicant had forgotten all about it. Therefore when it was found in his wallet in his pocket he was not in possession of it. Possession, goes on the argument, does not exist unless there is knowledge of the presence of the article and of its nature. There is no knowledge if recollection of the presence of the article has failed. In other words there is no possession if the alleged possessor has forgotten that he has the article.
In the judgment of this Court that argument is fallacious. It is true that a man does not necessarily possess every article which he may have in his pocket. If for example some evil minded person secretly slips a portion of cannabis resin into the pocket of another without the other's knowledge, the other is not in law in possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v McCalla
...judgment of the Court on appeal was delivered by Phillimore LJ. A substantial portion of it appears in the judgment in the later case of Martindale, (1986) 84 Cr. App. R. 32, to which we will refer in a moment, and accordingly that part need not be quoted here. We take in Buswell merely on ......
-
R v Leroy Jolie
...there under your hand and control." 10 Buswell was overlooked in a subsequent decision to which we need not refer, but it was followed in Martindale [1986] 84 Cr App R 31 where Lord Lane CJ said at 33 – "Possession does not depend upon the alleged possessor's powers of memory. Nor does poss......
-
Danny Klobucar(Applicant) v The Queen
...23 Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11 ; 274 FLR 226 R v Klobucar (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 53 R v Klobucar (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 347 R v Martindale [1986] 1 WLR 1042 [1986] 1 WLR 1042 Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77 [1993] HCA 77 ; 177 CLR 378 Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 321, 334, 374......
-
New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, 2016 NLTD(G) 194
...Inc. (2004), 134 L.A.C. (4th) 323; R. v. Manuel, [2003] N.J. No. 75, 57 W.C.B. (2d) 164 (N.L. Prov. Ct.)); R. v. Martindale, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1042 REASONS FOR BURRAGE, J.: INTRODUCTION This is an application for review of an arbitration Award of a sole arbitrator (the ȁ......