R v Souter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Crim J0524-5 |
| Date | 24 May 1971 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 4191/70 |
[1971] EWCA Crim J0524-5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Lord Justice Cairns
and
Mr. Justice Swanwick
No. 4191/70
MR. R.A. ROSEN appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. KENNEDY appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
By leave of the single Judge, Raymond Souter appeals against his conviction at the Hampshire Quarter Sessions last June of permitting the living-room in a house occupied by him in Farnborough to be used for the smoking of cannabis, contrary to section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965. Leave to appeal was granted because of the learned Deputy Chairman's direction regarding the connotation of "permitting".
On the evening of 18th April 1970, police went with a search warrant to a house in Reading Road owned by the Appellant, who let out some of the rooms, but retained the living-room for his own occupation. The premises were searched and in a waste bin in the downstairs living-room were found a syringe and a hypodermic needle. In an ashtray was found a cigarette end which was later discovered to contain a measurable quantity of cannabis resin or cannabis. In a drawer of a sideboard were found three used syringes. When asked about the syringe and hypodermic needle found in the waste bin, the Appellant said they were not his and that he did not use syringes. When further questioned, he said "They could be anybody's, a lot of people come in here when I am out". Questioned about the other three syringes he said "The same thing applies: they are not mine; I do not know whose they are".
Referring to the cigarette end he was told that it appeared to be the remains of a cannabis cigarette and he was asked if it was his: the Appellant replied "No, like I say, a lot of people come here". There was an ornamental pipe on a window ledge which had certainly not been recently used, but in the bowl there were traces of what turned out to be cannabis. He was asked if he had smoked cannabis in it, and he replied "No, I bought it in a secondhand shop sometime ago". He was asked if he had used it, and he replied he did not think so.
On the door of the Appellant's room was displayed a notice which ran: "If there is the slightest suspicion that there are illegal drugs of any sort or in any form on these premises, the police will be called immediately".
After analyses had been carried out, the Appellant was again interviewed by the police, having been cautioned and old that the cigarette end and pipe did contain restricted substances. He said "Well, I don't use it". He then made this statement: "A number of people who use drugs do come to my house from time to time, and I have at the moment one drug user staying with me permanently and one staying with me temporarily. I do not mind the legal drug users using drugs in my house, but do not like drugs being used illegally in the house. When the Police came to my house they found cigarette ends in an ash tray in my living room and in a waste paper basket in Peter Bennett's room. I have been shown them and I recognise them as 'roach' ends that is that they have contained cannabis. I did not know anything about them being smoked. When we first moved in a lot of people who came to the house smoked Cannabis, but I tried to put a stop to it by telling them not to and by putting a notice up on my living room door. I have used Cannabis myself but not for a very long time. As regards the pipe, I bought that in a second hand shop in Cove. I can't remember when I bought it or how much I paid for it but it was a long while ago. As regards the syringe containing amphetamine I "do not know anything about it. It is not mine or my wife's. It could he anybody's who come round here. I have seen syringes in my living room but I assumed they belonged to the legal drug user".
In the course of his evidence Souter said he had a strong desire to help drug addicts and that he had done this in the first place by taking them in as lodgers and later by making his house open to them, in the sense that he left the back door permanently open and allowed them to wander in and doss down in the living room. He said that he had known that his living room was being used by licensed addicts and had been willing for that to continue, but he insisted that he had not permitted or allowed anyone to smoke cannabis in his premises and he had no reason to suspect that this was being done. He claimed that by putting up the notice, he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent any such thing happening.
Further evidence for the defence was given by Bennett to the effect that he had twice been turned out of the Appellant's room when he discovered that Bennett was in unlawful possession of drugs. Bennett admitted knowledge that his own room in the same house was being used from time to time for cannabis smoking, but asserted that he had never seen this going on in Souter's living room. Further, a Mr. Paul testified that on occasions he had been to Souter's house, had seen the notice on the living room door, and in February 1970 he had twice seen Souter turn out of the house some 'skinheads' because they were carrying 'pills'. He was not cross-examined, yet his testimony, like that of Bennett, was nowhere referred to in the Summing-up.
In directing the jury the Deputy Chairman said: "Now then, did the Defendant permit the smoking in the room? Well, now "this question of permission involves knowledge. He is not guilty of permitting the smoking of that cigarette in the room unless he knew that the room would be used "by someone for the purpose of smoking the cigarette there, and failed to take means to prevent the smoking of the cigarette there …. If you do come to the conclusion that the cannabis cigarette was smoked in that room, did the defendant know or have grounds for reasonable suspicion that the room would be used by someone for that purpose? If he knew that, did he take steps to prevent it?" Then a little later he continued:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Thomas (Keith)
-
R v Bett
..."suffers" to "permits". These additions can only have been included for avoidance of doubt because this Court had held in the case of R v Souter (1971) 55 Cr App R 403 that under the Dangerous Drugs Act "permitting" connotes knowledge and in R v Thomas & Thomson (1976) 63 Cr App R 65 that "......
- Williams (Hubert) v The State
-
Williams v R
...Dulcie Lewis-Lashley v. The State Crim. Appeal 5/87; R v. Mills (1936) 25 Cr. App. R. 138; R v. Boteson (1970) 54 Cr. App. R. 11 at p.18; R v. Souther [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1187; R v. Wright (1974) 58 Cr. App. R. 444. In the last mentioned case the court stated quite emphatically that if the cour......