Concerned in production of methylamphetamine a class A controlled drug

Points to prove

• 1. A controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine (a Class A controlled drug), was produced by another person
• 2. That production was in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (not authorised by regulations under s 7 or provision made in a temporary class drug order under s 7A)
• 3. The defendant was concerned in that production by the other person (participation or identifiable involvement in the production enterprise)
• 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the production of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344, applied to the 'concerned in' limbs)

Defences

• Statutory defence — s 28(2) MDA 1971: the defendant proves he neither knew of, nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove
• Statutory defence — s 28(3)(b) MDA 1971: the defendant proves he neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance was a controlled drug (or believed it to be a controlled drug of a description he could lawfully have dealt with)

Mode of trial & maximum penalty

Either way — Summary: 6/12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine; Indictment: life imprisonment

Sources

• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/4
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/2
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/4
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/28