Knowingly permitting premises to be used for supplying controlled drugs - managers of drop-in centre - managers' belief that reasonable steps taken to prevent supply of drugs no defenceR v Brock; R v Wyner: CA (Rose LJ, Longmore and Ouseley JJ):21 December 2000The defendants directed and managed a drop-in centre for the homeless where an undercover police operation had revealed open and obvious drug dealing.

Eight people were arrested and prosecuted for supplying heroin.The Crown's case against the defendants was that it must have been obvious to those working at the premises that such activity was taking place, that the project's policy in relation to drugs was not enforced as it should have been by the defendants and that they were unwilling to take readily available reasonable steps to stop the drug dealing.

The defendants denied being unwilling to prevent drug dealing.

They were convicted of knowingly permitting premises to be used for supplying controlled drugs, contrary to section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

They appealed against conviction on the ground that the judge had failed to direct the jury as to the ambit of the term 'knowingly' and as to the steps it would have been reasonable for the defendants to have taken to prevent the drugs being supplied.Michael Mansfield QC and Karim Khalil (instructed by Shelley & Co, Cambridge) for the defendants.

William Clegg QC and John Caudle (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Cambridge) for the Crown.Held, dismissing the appeals, that to establish the offence under section 8(b) the prosecution had to prove: (i) actual knowledge that drug dealing was taking place or that the defendants had closed their eyes to the obvious; and, (ii) unwillingness to prevent it, which could be inferred from failure to take reasonable steps readily available to prevent it; that a defendant's belief that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent drugs being supplied was irrelevant and did not afford a defence; and that, accordingly, the judge's directions had been correct, and the convictions were safe even though he had failed to direct the jury that in assessing what steps the defendant should reasonably have taken regard should be had to his or her level of knowledge of the dealing which was taking place.

(WLR)