Legal Skills Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Legal Skills - Case Study Example He admitted that he knew that it contained prohibited drugs either heroin or cannabis. Analysis showed that the material in the suitcase was not a prohibited drug but vegetable matter akin snuff. He appealed on the ground that because the substance was not a prohibited drug he had not done an act which was not more then merely preparatory 2 to the commission of the offence as required by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The appellant, on a visit to India, was approached by a man named Desai, who offered to pay him 1000 if, on his return to England, he would receive a suitcase which a courier would deliver to him containing packages of drugs which the appellant was then to distribute according to instructions he would receive. The suitcase was duly delivered to him in Cambridge. Acting on instructions, the appellant went to Southall station to deliver a package of drugs to a third party 3. Outside the station, he and the man he had met by appointment were arrested. A package containing a powdered substance was found in the appellant's shoulder bag. He produced to customs officers the suitcase from which the lining had been ripped out 4 and the remaining packages of the same powdered substance. In answer to questions by customs officers and in a long written statement the appellant made what amounted to a full confession of having played... The appellant believed the drugs to be either heroin or cannabis. In due course, the powdered substance in the several packages was scientifically analysed and found not to be a controlled drug but snuff or some similar harmless vegetable matter. The applicant was convicted under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(1) of attempting to commit the offence of being of Knowingly concerned the dealing with and harbouring prohibited drugs s 170 (1) (b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempt Act 1981 provides that a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if, with intent to commit the offence, he does an act which is more than merely preparatory 5 to the commission of the offence. The prosecution must prove that the defendants did what they did knowingly and it must be proved that they knew the goods were prohibited goods and had been imported into the United Kingdom. There is evidence to consider in this case that Mr. Shivpuri particularly knew the nature of the substance. The House of Lords, looking at the case law and legislative history, concluded that Parliament intended that the only means rea necessary for an offence under Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(1) and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, should be knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. If there are four offences, the means rea is the same for each. In this case, D would be guilty of the life offence, although the offence he believed he has committing was punishable with only 5 years. He would be attempt to commit the five years 5) Mens rea of the offence, offence, because that is the offence he intents to commit. These results