Regina v Panton: CACD 27 Mar 2001

In the supply of drugs, rather than possession, the defendant asserted that his consent to acting to take care of the drugs, was given only under duress. Consent was not required of both parties. Supply was to be given its ordinary meaning, and according to the context. Beyond mere transfer was required only that the recipient was in a position to make use of it. An intention to return the drugs to the person who had passed them to him was still an intention to supply.


Times 27-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001


Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 5(3)


CitedRegina v Maginnis HL 5-Mar-1987
M was stopped by the police. They found cannabis in his car. He said he was looking after it for a friend. He was accused of intending to supply it.
Held: ‘The word ‘supply’ in its ordinary natural meaning conveys the idea of furnishing or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88582