Drugs - possession of cannabis with intent to supply

Absence of defence of intended use only for religious purposes not infringement of convention rightR v Taylor (Paul): CA (Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Davis and Sir Richard Tucker): 23 October 2001The defendant was charged with possession of a class B drug (cannabis) with intent to supply.The judge ruled that, in the light of the Crown's concession that the drugs were destined for use in connection with Rastafarian religious purposes, article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged but that the defendant's rights under article 9(1) to manifest his religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance were qualified by the provisions of article 9(2) which made those rights subject to such limitations as were prescribed by law and were necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.The judge relied on the UK's subscription to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 as powerful evidence that an unqualified ban on the possession of cannabis with intent to supply was necessary.

The defendant pleaded guilty.

He sought leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the judge's ruling was wrong.Owen Davies QC and Ben Cooper (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.

Christopher Hehir and James Lofthouse (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Tower Bridge) for the Crown.Held, refusing the application, that the judge was entitled to rely upon the inferences to be drawn from the UK's subscription to the 1961 and 1988 conventions and, in the exercise of his discretion, to conclude that no stay was appropriate in relation to the prosecution of the defendant and that questions of proportionality and necessity were not proper questions for consideration by a jury; and that, accordingly, the prohibitions contained in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in relation to the supply of cannabis did not amount to an interference with the defendant's rights under article 9.

(WLR)