Concerned in supply of a drug subject of a temporary class drug order

Points to prove

• 1. A substance or product was specified as a drug subject to temporary control by a temporary class drug order under s 2A MDA 1971 which was in force at the material time
• 2. That drug was supplied to another person in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (not authorised by any provision made in the temporary class drug order by virtue of s 7A, or by regulations under s 7)
• 3. The defendant was concerned in the supplying of the drug to another (participation or identifiable involvement in the supply enterprise)
• 4. The defendant knew the nature of the enterprise, i.e. that it involved the supply of a controlled drug (R v Hughes (1985) 81 Cr App R 344)

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: 14 years' imprisonment

Sources

• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/25
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/4
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/4
• www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/2A