The court head a renewed application in person for leave to appeal a conviction for producing cannabis. The defendant sought to rely on a defence of necessity, saying that cannabis was the only way available to him to control the pain of his multiple sclerosis. The judge had been invited to rule whether, as a matter of law on the defendant’s own factual and medical evidence, there was any defence properly to be left to the jury; and, after his negative ruling, the defendant pleaded guilty and sought to appeal.
Held: The ruling was upheld.
Levesen J: ‘In this case the choice facing the applicant was not severe pain without cannabis or absence of pain with cannabis, rather it was absence of pain with adverse side effects without cannabis, and, on his account, absence of pain with minimal side effects with cannabis. The difference is restricted to the adverse side effects which, however unpleasant, could not sensibly be said to raise a prime facie possibility of serious injury, let alone one such as would overwhelm the will of the defendant. Quite apart from this point, there has to be material from which a jury could come to a conclusion that they were not sure from an objective stand point that the applicant was not acting reasonably and proportionately. The evidence makes it clear that it was possible for the applicant to control pain by conventional and legal means. These arguments are sufficient to demonstrate that the learned judge was correct to conclude that the evidence, even at its highest, was not sufficient to raise a defence to be left to the jury. Finally, the Crown argued that in order to provide prima facie evidence of a defence fit to be left to the jury there had to be material from which the jury could conclude that the causative feature of the applicant’s commission of the offence was, or may have been, extraneous to the applicant on the basis that the defence does not extend to include the subjective thought processes and emotions of the defendant: see R v Roger [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 142, where the suicidal thoughts of a prisoner were judged to be no defence to the offence of breaking prison. Suicide or depression is an innate affliction, as are the side effects of pain relief using lawful medication.
Judges:
Kay LJ, Silber and Levesen JJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Crim 2637
Statutes:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(2)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rodger, Rose CACD 9-Jul-1997
The two defendants escaped from Parkhurst Prison. On capture they said that as murderers, they had received notices that though they had behaved without criticism in prison, their tarriffs had been increased. They said they felt unable to face . .
Cited by:
Cited – Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004) CACD 27-May-2005
Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.225366