Martin & Anor, R. v

For an offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, “supply” is a broad expression. It covers the process by which drugs are obtained and transported for delivery to others. It does not require proof that a completed delivery or a past supply has occurred.

The prosecution must prove supply to another, the defendant’s participation in the enterprise, and knowledge that the enterprise involved supplying a drug. Evidence that drugs are being transported to intended recipients can satisfy the supply element.

The appellants were convicted at Winchester Crown Court of being concerned in the supply of heroin, contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The prosecution relied on evidence of a message about supplying drugs, a journey to London, and the return journey with 116 grams of heroin intended for distribution in Portsmouth.

At trial, the appellants submitted that the offence required proof of a completed delivery to another. The trial judge rejected that submission. The appellants appealed against conviction with permission, contending that transport of drugs for an intended future delivery was not “supply to another”.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The trial judge correctly refused to withdraw the case from the jury. There was evidence capable of establishing all ingredients of the offence under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

2. The court applied the three elements stated in R v Hughes (Robert) (1985) 81 Cr App R 344: supply of a drug to another in contravention of section 4(1), participation in the enterprise, and knowledge of its drug-supply character. Participation and knowledge were supported by the evidence; the only contested element was supply to another.

3. Section 4(3)(b) uses the expression “supply to another”. It does not require an “actual delivery” or a completed past transaction. Supply is broad enough to encompass the entire process of supplying drugs, including their collection and transport for intended delivery.

4. The message concerning supply, the journey to collect drugs, the commercial quantity of heroin, and its transport from London towards Portsmouth provided clear evidence that the drugs were being carried for delivery to others. That was capable of constituting supply to another. The convictions therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against conviction in [2014] EWCA Crim 1940.
• Crown Court at Winchester: the appellants were convicted by a jury of being concerned in the supply of heroin under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.