Tao was an undergraduate at Cambridge who had occupied a room in a college hostel. He appealed a conviction for being an occupier of premises used for the smoking of cannabis.
Held: His conviction was upheld. Roskill LJ: ‘On those facts it seems to us that the correct legal analysis of the appellant’s right of occupation of that room in the King’s College Hostel was this: he had an exclusive contractual licence from the college to use that room. He was entitled to retain the use of that room to live in, to sleep in, to eat in and to work in: he paid the college for the use of that room. It was, in ‘our view, clearly a licence which gave him not merely a right to use but a sufficient exclusivity of possession, so that he can fairly be said to be ‘the occupier’ of that room for the purpose of section 8. He does not have to be a tenant or to have an estate in land before he can be ‘the occupier’ within that section. It is in every case a question of fact and degree, whether someone can fairly be said to be ‘the occupier’ for the purpose of that section.’ and ‘One asks what is the mischief against which this section is aimed. If one asks that question, it seems to this Court plain that the object is to punish those persons who are able to exclude from their premises potential offenders who wish to smoke cannabis in those premises but do not do so, ‘by making such persons themselves guilty of an offence if they knowingly permit or suffer any of the forbidden activities, those persons being either ‘the occupier’ or ‘concerned in the management’ of those premises. This suggests that Parliament was intending not that a legalistic meaning should be given to the phrase ‘the occupier’ but a common sense interpretation, that is to say ‘the occupier’ was to be regarded as someone who, on the facts of the particular case, could fairly be said to be ‘in occupation’ of the premises in question, so as to have the requisite degree of control over those premises to exclude from them those who might otherwise intend to carry on those forbidden activities I have already indicated. That is the way in which this Court would approach a question of construction, apart from authority.’
Judges:
Roskill LJ
Citations:
(1976) 63 Crim App R 163
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Mogford 1976
(Glamorgan Assizes) The two daughters of parents who owned, but were away from, a house in South Wales had invited some friends in to smoke cannabis.
Held: The daughters could not in those circumstances properly be charged as occupiers of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Read v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for being an occupier of premises used for smoking cannabis. The Appellant lived at the premises together with his common law wife and children as a family. On the facts the magistrates found that the . .
Cited – Campbell v Campbell CC 1982
(Kingston Crown Court) Two brothers, in their mother’s absence but with her permission, held an overnight party at her house. During the evening cannabis was smoked by their guests. The judge had applied Mogford. Judge Oddie: ‘To be ‘the occupier’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241347