Sweet v Parsley

[1969] 1 All ER 347

---

Between: Sweet
And: Parsley

Court:

Judges: Lord Reid
Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest
Lord Pearce
Lord Wilberforce
Lord Diplock

Subject References:
Drugs
Dangerous drugs
Cannabis
Tenant of house
No knowledge that cannabis being smoked on premises
Rooms in house sublet and in fact used for smoking cannabis
Mental element in statutory offence
Whether tenant concerned in the management of premises used for smoking of cannabis
Criminal Law
Mens rea
Statutory offence
Absolute liability
Concerned in management of premises used for smoking or dealing in cannabis
Examination of relevant circumstances establishing intention of Parliament to create absolute offence

Legislative References:
Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (c 15) - s 5(b)

Case References:
A-G v Lockwood - (1842) 9 M & W 378; 152 ER 160, affd sub nom
Lockwoood v A-G - (1842) 10 M & W 464; 152 ER 552; 39 Digest (Repl) 270, 116
Bank of New South Wales v Piper - [1897] AC 383; 66 LJPC 73; 76 LT 572; 61 JP 660; 14 Digest (Repl) 32 40
Brend v Wood - (1946) 175 LT 306; 110 JP 317; 17 Digest (Repl) 460, 194
Derbyshire v Houliston - [1897] 1 QB 772; 66 LJQB 569; 76 LT 624; 61 JP 374; 14 Digest (Repl) 36, 60
Dyke v Elliott, The Gauntlet - (1872) LR 4 PC 184; 26 LT 45; 17 ER 373
sub nom R v Elliott - 41 LJAdm 65; 15 Digest (Repl) 877, 8445
Lim Chin Aik v Reginam - [1963] 1 All ER 223; [1963] AC 160; [1963] 2 WLR 42; Digest (Cont Vol A) 23, *166a
M'Naghten's Case - (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; [1843-60] All ER Rep 229; 8 ER 718; 14 Digest (Repl) 60, 246
Maher v Musson - (1934) 52 CLR 100
Pearks, Gunston & Tee Ltd v Ward, Hennen v Southern Counties Dairies Co Ltd - [1902] 2 KB 1; [1900-03] All ER Rep 228; 71 LJKB 656; 87 LT 51; 66 JP 774; 14 Digest (Repl) 43, 115
Proudman v Dayman - (1941) 67 CLR 536; 14 Digest (Repl) 33, *24
R v Gould - [1968] 1 All ER 849; [1968] 2 QB 65; [1968] 2 WLR 643
R v Tolson - (1889) 23 QBD 168; [1886-90] All ER Rep 26; 58 LJMC 97; 60 LT 899; 54 JP 4, 20; 20, 15 Digest (Repl) 890, 8578
R v Wheat, R v Stocks - [1921] 2 KB 119; [1921] All ER Rep 602; 90 LJKB 583; 124 LT 830; 85 JP 203; 15 Digest (Repl) 891, 8591
Sherras v De Rutzen - [1895] 1 QB 918; [1895-99] All ER Rep 1167; 64 LJMC 218; 72 LT 839; 59 JP 440; 14 Digest (Repl) 39, 90
Thomas v Regem - (1937) 59 CLR 279
Warner v Metropolitan Police Comr - [1968] 2 All ER 356; [1968] 2 WLR 1303
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions - [1935] AC 462; [1935] All ER Rep 1; 104 LJKB 433; 153 LT 232; 14 Digest (Repl) 493, 4768
Yeandel v Fisher - [1965] 3 All ER 158; [1966] 1 QB 440; [1965] 3 WLR 1002; 129 JP 546; Digest (Cont Vol B) 151, 57a

Hearing date: 27, 28 November, 2, 3, 4 December 1968
Judgment date: 23 January 1969

---

The appellant, a teacher, took a sublease of a farmhouse just outside Oxford. She intended to live in the house and travel into Oxford each day. This proved impracticable and she decided to reside in Oxford and to let rooms in the house. Her tenants shared the use of the kitchen. The appellant retained the use of one room for herself and visited the house occasionally to collect letters, to collect rent from the tenants, and generally to see that all was well. The only form of control which she exercised over her tenants (other than collecting the rent) was to complain if they made excessive noise late at night on the infrequent occasions when she staved overnight at the house. On 16 June 1967, whilst she was in Oxford, the police searched the house and garden and found receptacles containing cannabis and LSD hidden in the garden and cigarette ends containing cannabis in the kitchen. The Divisional Court dismissed her appeal against conviction of being concerned in the management of premises which were used for the purpose of smoking cannabis, contrary to s 5(b) ^[Fa] of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, on the ground that she had been concerned in the management of the premises, although the justices found that she had no knowledge whatever that the house was being used for the purpose of smoking cannabis or cannabis resin. On appeal,

Held:

The appeal would be allowed, because no offence under s 5(b) of the Act had been disclosed, since:

(a)

(per Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Diplock) for the offence under s 5(b) to be committed it must be shown that it was the appellant's prupose that the premises be used for smoking cannabis; ie that she intended that the premises be so used.

R v Tolson ([1886-90] All ER Rep 26) approved;

(b)

(per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Pearce) s 5(b) required that, before the appellant could be convicted, she must be shown to have knowledge of the particular purpose to which the premises were being put.

Warner v Metropolitan Police Comr ([1968] 2 All ER 356) applied.

Decision of the Divisional Court ([1968] 2 All ER 337) reversed.

Notes

As to offences under the Dangerous Drugs Acts, see 26 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edn) 215, para 487; and as to offences concerning the smoking of cannabis, see Supplement thereto.

As to mens rea in statutory offences, see 10 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edn) 273, 274, para 508; and for cases on the subject, see 14 Digest (Repl) 35-39, 48-95.

For the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, s 5, see 45 Halsbury's Statutes (2nd Edn) 895.

Appeal

This was an appeal by Stephanie Lavinia Sweet against an order of the Divisional Court (Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth and Blain JJ) dated 22 March 1968, and reported [1968] 2 All ER 337, dismissing her appeal against conviction by justices for the county of Oxford in respect of their adjudication as a magistrates' court sitting at Woodstock on 14 September 1967, on a charge brought by the respondent, Edmund Raymond Parsley, a police sergeant, that, on 16 June 1967, she was concerned in the management of certain premises situate at Fries Farm which were used for the purpose of smoking cannabis or cannabis resin, contrary to s 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The facts are set out in the opinion of Lord Reid. The Divisional Court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but on a renewal of the application for leave to appeal on 13 May 1968, granted leave pursuant to the Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 1(2), certifying three points of law of general public importance (see p 360, letter H, post).

Their Lordships took time for consideration.