The court heard a second application in person for permission to appeal a conviction for producing cannabis. The defence was necessity. He claimed to use cannabis medicinally to relieve pain. He complained about the judge’s directions on the defence to the effect that the prosecution had to satisfy the jury that necessity was not a possibility, and that they could only convict if they rejected what the defendant said. The jury were to consider whether they were sure that he only relied on this defence after he had been told about it after his interview and it had not occurred to him beforehand, followed by a direction that ‘If you are sure that necessity played no part in this until after the interview, then he is guilty’.
Held: The ‘directions were both clear and correct. Having correctly directed them on necessity, the issue was left to the jury in terms which could not have been made clearer’.
Judges:
Mitchell and Keith JJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Crim 60
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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.225365
