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 currency which he thought was not controlled. The recorder had ruled that he would be obliged to direct the jury that, even upon the defendant’s version of events, they would be obliged to convict. He pleaded guilty.
Held: The appeal was allowed. While it was not essential for a conviction for the Crown to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the goods that were being imported, he was to be judged on the facts as he believed them to be.
Judges:
Lord Lane CJ
Citations:
[1983] 1 WLR 627
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.237678