Sweet v Parsley

A criminal statute is presumed to require mens rea unless Parliament excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. Statutory silence, including the omission of “knowingly”, does not by itself create an absolute offence. The inquiry considers the statutory language and context, the nature and gravity of the offence, its stigma and punishment, the mischief addressed, the consequences for innocent persons and whether strict liability would promote compliance.

Section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 required knowledge. Premises are used for the purpose of smoking cannabis only where that is a purpose of their management, rather than an isolated or fortuitous act by an occupant or visitor.

Stephanie Sweet was the occupier of a house from which she was frequently absent. Cannabis was smoked there without her permission or knowledge. The magistrates nevertheless convicted her under section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 of being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis, and fined her £25.

The Divisional Court dismissed her appeal. It treated the offence as absolute, following Yeandel v Fisher [1966] 1 Q.B. 440, but granted leave to appeal. The certified questions concerned whether section 5(b) created an absolute offence, what mental element it required and whether the findings could support the conviction.

1. Disposition. The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal. The finding that the appellant had no knowledge that the premises were being used for smoking cannabis precluded conviction. Lord Reid would quash the conviction, while Lord Morris stated that the case should be remitted to the Divisional Court with a direction to quash it.

2. Presumption of mens rea. Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Pearce and Lord Diplock affirmed that mens rea is ordinarily an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Parliament may create an absolute offence, but that intention must appear expressly or by necessary implication. The omission of “knowingly”, even where that word appears in other provisions, does not itself displace the presumption. Lord Wilberforce found it unnecessary to determine the wider doctrine because the statutory words themselves imported the required mental element.

3. Determining whether the presumption is displaced. Lord Reid and Lord Pearce treated absolute offences as exceptional, particularly where the offence is truly criminal and carries serious punishment or stigma. Relevant considerations include the language and context, the regulated activity, the mischief, the effect on innocent persons and whether strict liability can usefully promote prevention. Lord Morris emphasised fair, reasonable and common-sense construction. Lord Diplock added that an enhanced duty may sometimes be inferred for voluntary participation in a regulated activity dangerous to health, safety or morals, but only where the person can do something to promote compliance.

4. Construction of section 5(b). All five Law Lords concluded that being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis required knowledge of that purpose. Lord Reid and Lord Pearce relied on the provision’s origin in opium legislation. Lord Morris considered that the prohibited purpose must be significant or recognised, rather than casual or fortuitous. Lord Wilberforce held that the provision addressed purposeful management, including a prohibited purpose acquired through infiltration and acquiescence. Lord Diplock similarly held that management connotes control or direction towards a desired result. The construction adopted in Yeandel v Fisher [1966] 1 Q.B. 440 could not stand.

5. Honest and reasonable mistake. In non-controlling observations, Lord Diplock approved the principle associated with Reg v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168: statutory language ordinarily implies that an honest and reasonable belief in facts which would make the act innocent prevents conviction. He explained Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 as leaving the ultimate burden on the prosecution. Once evidence raises the mistake, the prosecution must negative it beyond reasonable doubt.

1. House of Lords: In Sweet v Parsley [1969] UKHL 1, the House unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
2. Divisional Court: The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the appellant was concerned in the management of the premises and that the offence was absolute. It followed Yeandel v Fisher [1966] 1 Q.B. 440, but granted leave to appeal and certified three questions of law.
3. Woodstock magistrates: The magistrates convicted the appellant under section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 and fined her £25, despite finding that she had no knowledge of the cannabis smoking.