Regina v Hussain: CACD 1969

The only mens rea necessary for proof of any offence of importing drugs was the knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. The accused must know ‘that what is on foot is the evasion of a prohibition against importation and he knowingly takes part in that operation . . even if he does not know precisely what kind of goods are being imported. It is, of course, essential that he should know that the goods which are being imported are goods subject to a prohibition. It is essential he should know that the operation with which he is concerning himself is an operation designed to evade that prohibition and evade it fraudulently’.


Lord Widgery LJ


[1969] 2 QB 567, [1969] 3 WLR 134, [1969] 2 All ER 1117


Dangerous Drugs Act 1965


England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Forbes (Giles) HL 20-Jul-2001
The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which . .
CitedRegina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .
CitedRegina v Bett CACD 12-Oct-1998
A conviction under section 8(b) for permitting premises to be used for the supply of controlled drugs was correct without evidence of knowledge of the particular drug supplied even though particular drugs were named in the indictments. The section . .
ApprovedRegina v Taaffe HL 1984
For the purpose of section 170(2) of the 1979 Act a defendant must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be, such matter being an integral part of the inquiry as to whether he was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition . .
CitedRegina v Taaffe CACD 1983
The defendant appealed a conviction for having been knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of cannabis resin. He said he had done so at the request of a someone but that he believed the substance to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.181226