R v Taaffe

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Scarman,Lord Roskill,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Brightman
Judgment Date01 March 1984
Judgment citation (vLex)[1984] UKHL J0301-3
Date01 March 1984
CourtHouse of Lords
Regina
(Appellants)
and
Taaffe
(Respondent)
(on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

[1984] UKHL J0301-3

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Lord Scarman

Lord Roskill

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Lord Brightman

House of Lords

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

My Lords,

1

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Scarman, and I agree with it. For the reasons given by him I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeal.

Lord Scarman

My Lords,

2

The certified question in this appeal by the Crown from the decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the respondent's conviction in the Crown Court, Gravesend, neatly summarises the assumed facts upon which the learned Recorder ruled that, even if they were proved to the satisfaction of a jury, the respondent would not be entitled to be acquitted. The question is in these terms:

"When a defendant is charged with an offence, contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug -

Does the defendant commit the offence where he:

(a) imports prohibited drugs into the United Kingdom;

(b) intends fraudulently to evade a prohibition on importation; but

(c) mistakenly believes the goods to be money and not drugs; and

(d) mistakenly believes that money is the subject of a prohibition against importation."

3

In effect, the learned Recorder answered the question in the affirmative and the Court of Appeal in the negative.

4

There was no trial: for the respondent changed his plea to guilty after the learned Recorder's ruling. On his appeal against conviction, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by the Lord Chief Justice. Reported in [1983] 1 W.L.R. 621, the judgment recites the history of the case and the assumptions upon which a decision had to be taken. It is unnecessary to burden the House with a repetition of what is there so clearly set forth.

5

The learned Chief Justice construed the subsection under which the respondent was charged as creating an offence not of absolute liability but as one of which an essential ingredient is a guilty mind. To be "knowingly concerned" meant, in his judgment, knowledge not only of the existence of a smuggling operation but also that the substance being smuggled into the country was one the importation of which was prohibited by statute. The respondent thought he was concerned in a smuggling operation but believed that the substance was currency. The importation of currency is not subject to any prohibition. The learned Chief Justice concluded that:

"He [the respondent] is to be judged against the facts that he believed them to be. Had this indeed been currency and not cannabis, no offence would have been committed". (631B).

The learned Chief...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • R v Ellis
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 31 Julio 1986
    ...Kingdom goods which he should not have been bringing in. Hennessey's appeal against conviction is dismissed." 16 In 1983 the case of R. v. Taaffe 77 Cr. App. R. 82, came before this court. Taaffe had this difference. In that case the defendant when he was found to have a lot of cannabis sto......
  • R v Luke Steven Derwood Datson
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 26 Septiembre 2022
    ...by the Respondent – such proof also being essential to guilt. (3) In accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in R v Taaffe [1984] 1 AC 539, the Appellant should have been judged in accordance with the facts as he believed them to be – namely that the goods were not prohibited. (4......
  • Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 Julio 2006
    ...as he did because he believed, contrary to the fact, that they were prohibited. The line of defence which was approved in R v Taaffe [1984] AC 539 ensures the acquittal of people who genuinely believe that they are importing indecent photographs of adults which are not obscene when they are......
  • R v Forbes (Giles)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Julio 2001
    ...goods which he should not have been bringing in". 7 The decision in R v Hussain was also approved by the House of Lords in R v Taaffe [1984] AC 539, 547 and in R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 8 The decision in R v Taaffe [1984] AC 539 also accepted that for the purpose of section 170 (2) of the 1979......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canada's Laws on Import and Export. An Overview
    • 19 Junio 2014
    ...(4th) 719, [1984] OJ No 3147 (CA), af’d [1988] 2 SCR 495, 55 DLR (4th) 673, [1988] SCJ No 86 ..........................59 R v Taafe, [1984] 1 All ER 747, [1984] AC 539 (HL) ...........................................................73 R v Therriens, [1985] 1 SCR 613, 18 DLR (4th) 655, [1985......
  • The criminal sanction under the Environment Management Act of Malawi: a critical analysis
    • South Africa
    • Malawi Law Journal No. 2-1, January 2008
    • 1 Enero 2008
    ...to recordsIt is an offence for a person to fail to keep records required under the EMA56 (2008) MLJ VOL.2, ISSUE 138 See R v Taaffe [1984] AC 539, 544. See also Peter Hungerford-Welch& Alan Taylor Sourcebookon criminal law (London: Cavendish Publishing, 1997) 34.39 [1984] AC 539 at 546. In ......
  • Recent Judicial Decisions
    • United Kingdom
    • Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 75-4, November 2002
    • 1 Noviembre 2002
    ...he brought and producing receiptsfor the genuine films to customs officials.The only defence he advanced at trial, based on RvTaaffe[1984] AC 539; [1984] 1 All ER 747 was that he believed hewas carrying two prohibited films but that, in reality, those filmswere not prohibited and accordingl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT