Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 October 1971 |
| Date | 01 October 1971 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X7104400405 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J. C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent (JfThe Police Journal
REf;ENT
JUDIf;IAL
DEf;ISIONS
DRUGS AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY AGAIN
There are already two divergent important decided cases on the
question
of
mens rea in drug cases. The first, R. v. Warner (1969) 2
A.C. 256, a House of Lords case, held
that
the possession
of
an
unauthorised illegal drug was a crime irrespective of the accused's
lack
of
knowledge
that
he had the drug.
It
will be recalled
that
the
accused had picked up a box and he claimed
that
he did not know
that
the box contained an illegal drug. This case can be contrasted
with Sweet v. Parsley (1969) 2 W.L.R. 470, also a House
of
Lords
decision. The charge here concerned the management
of
premises
used for the smoking
of
an illegal drug. In this case lack of knowledge
was held on appeal to be a defence. The House
of
Lords delivered
important judgments setting out some principles useful in respect of
the problem of mens rea in statutory offences.
It
was indicated, for
example,
that
apart from the approach through statutory inter-
pretation consideration could be given to the social aspects of the
crime in question. If conviction would serve to be a serious stigma,
mens rea is a more likely constituent. There was clearly an element
of inconsistency in the approaches adopted in these cases.
It
follows
that
a case in this area is welcome. The facts of R. v.
that
apenknife was found in
Marriott's bedroom. A forensic examination showed
that
the blade
had a minute quantity
of
cannabis resin on its tip. He was charged
with possession and the defence was based on his lack of knowledge.
He produced evidence
that
others used his room and he disputed
that
he owned the knife although it was in his possession. There was
evidence
that
some weeks before the police found the knife Marriott's
wife had shown him the knife which she had found in a drawer. He
put
it away indicating
that
he did
not
think it was his by saying,
"If
anybody asks for it, it is there for them."
The Court
of
Appeal made a significant distinction in their
approach to the legal problem of knowledge. They distinguished
knowledge
that
the knife had foreign matter on it and the further
knowledge
that that
matter was cannabis resin. They pointed out
that
the judgments in Warner are not all clearly consistent but they
felt
that
this case decided
that
where a man is in possession of a box
which he knows has contents and these contents
turn
out to be
illegal drugs he cannot rely on his lack
of
knowledge of the nature
of
306 October 1971
To continue reading
Request your trial