|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006
This case ([1969] 2 AC 256) demonstrates the convoluted nature
of arguments relating to StrictLiability offences.
Warner was convicted of possession of amphetamine tablets,
contrary to s.1 of the DrugsPreventionOfMisuseAct1964.
He was found with two cases, one of which contained perfume and
the other amphetamine tablets. He claimed that he purchased the
cases on the assumption that both contained perfume.
At trial, the judge directed the jury that the offence of possession
was one of strict liability; if the accused had control of the
cases, then he could be assumed to possess the drugs and
therefore be guilty, regardless of his knowledge or motive.
On appeal this was ruled to be a misdirection; to be in
possession one must control the substance possessed as well as
its container. However, there was no question of the accused
not possessing the substances in this case, and the misdirection
was irrelevant. There was nothing in the Act that required that
the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed
the banned substance; the brute fact of possession was enough.
To a degree this case hinged on the precise meaning of the term
`possession'. Although courts are reluctant to assume that a statute
creates a strict liability offence, the wording of this Act
allowed no other realistic interpretation. It was suggested, however,
that ignorance of the existence of the drugs would be a defence; that
is, one could not `possess' something of which one was unaware. This
at least would allow a person to be acquited who was an innocent
party to an attempt to transport banned drugs. As soon as the accused
knows of the existence of a substance, however, he possesses it;
the fact that he does not know what it is does not constitute
a defence.
CaseLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|
