[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bland, R. v [1987] EWCA Crim 1 (21 July 1987) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1987/1.html Cite as: [1987] EWCA Crim 1

[New search] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice,
		21st July 1987

MR. JUSTICE OTTON: On 7th November 1986 in the Crown Court at St. Albans before a Recorder and a jury, the appellant was convicted of two counts of possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply. She was later sentenced to three months' imprisonment which was suspended for two years on each count, concurrent.

She now appeals against conviction by leave of the single Judge.

The facts of the case can be stated briefly. In November 1985 the appellant, Helen Claire Bland, and her boy friend, Nigel Ratliff, who was her co-accused, moved into premises known as 33 Vicarage Road, Watford. It is a house which was divided into six separate bedrooms. The appellant and Mr. Ratliff occupied a first floor room and shared a small kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor with the other residents.

On l8th December 1985 police officers kept observation on the house and saw a considerable number of people calling at the premises. They rang a bell which was wired to the appellant's room, and there was evidence that it was situated in a somewhat unusual position separate and apart from the other bell and low to the ground.

The police officers kept observation again on the following day and saw a number of people call and gain admittance by the same door bell and leave a short time later. The police stopped and questioned some of these people, and they discovered that two of them were in possession of drugs.

Shortly thereafter, at about 5.35 in the evening, they executed a search warrant. Both of the accused were present, but the appellant had only recently returned from work some 5 minutes earlier. During the search the police found a quantity of drugs in the dust bag of a vacuum cleaner, and traces of cannabis resin on a bread board and knife in the bedroom shared by the appellant and Ratliff.

Both accused were arrested and kept at the premises for some time, during which there was a number of callers, obviously seeking to obtain drugs. On each occasion they asked for Nigel. No one asked for the appellant. Subsequently when interviewed, none of the callers knew of the existence of this appellant.

When the appellant came to be interviewed, she denied all knowledge of the drugs found in the house, and said that she could not believe that Mr. Ratliff had been involved in either possessing drugs or supplying drugs.

The prosecution case against the appellant relied solely on the fact that she was living with Ratliff at a time when he undoubtedly possessed and dealt with in drugs. Reliance was also placed upon the presence of the bread board and bread knife. A pair of scales was also found, but those scales were not even sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing, and there was no evidence to suggest that those scales had been used in the trafficking of drugs. There was also evidence that the Hoover was not used exclusively by Ratliff and the appellant, but was in common use by all the residents in the house.

At the close of the prosecution case counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury. Counsel for the Crown submitted however that it was open to the jury to find that the appellant knew what Ratliff was doing and was acting not as a principal but one who lent passive assistance. The learned Recorder rejected the defence submission.

In the presentation of this appeal two submissions have been made on behalf of this appellant: firstly, that the learned Recorder allowed the case to proceed before the jury when there was no evidence capable of supporting it, and secondly, that the learned Recorder erred in his summing up in the way in which he dealt with the elements required to prove that the appellant was a secondary offender and not a principal, and in particular that the learned Recorder erred when directing the jury on the concept of passive assistance.

This Court takes its starting point the fact, that the prosecution case against the appellant relied solely on the fact that she was living in the flat at a time when he possessed and dealt in drugs. As it subsequently transpired, the Recorder directed the jury that the only basis upon which the appellant could be guilty of aiding and abetting was if the prosecution had proved that she had given passive assistance to Mr. Ratliff.

The question therefore is whether at the end of the prosecution case there was any evidence to support that case.

In the opinion of this Court there was no evidence of assistance, active or passive, which could permit the case to proceed to the jury. There was no evidence from which the jury could draw such an inference. The fact that these two young people were living together in the same room was not sufficient evidence from which the jury could draw such an inference. There was undoubtedly sufficient evidence for the jury to infer knowledge on the part of the appellant that Mr. Ratliff was in fact dealing in drugs, but no more. Assistance, though passive, requires more than mere knowledge. For example it requires evidence of encouragement at least, or of some element of control. Such evidence was entirely lacking in this case at the close of the prosecution case.

In those circumstances this Court has come to the conclusion that the learned Recorder, although faced with a very difficult task, nonetheless fell into error. He should have acceded to the submission of the defence and should have ordered that there was no evidence for the jury to consider and he should have withdrawn the case from the jury.

As the appellant succeeds on ground 1 of the grounds of appeal, it is not necessary for this Court to consider ground 2, nor to examine those passages in the summing up which were directed to the concept of passive assistance.

In the circumstances this appeal is allowed and the conviction will be ordered to be set aside.