Johnson, R v

For the prison-conveyance offences under the Prison Act 1952, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew that he was taking something prohibited into prison. It need not prove knowledge of the precise article, its contents, or the statutory list into which it falls.

A genuine-belief defence protects a person who unknowingly brings in a prohibited article. It does not assist a person who believes that a package contains a prohibited item, even if its actual contents differ. The extent of the defendant’s knowledge may nevertheless be important on sentence and may require a Newton hearing.

Wayne Johnson smuggled a package into HMP Peterborough for an inmate. The package contained oxymethalone pills, SIM cards and spice. He maintained that he believed it contained spice only.

Having pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to a separate summary offence concerning spice, he faced indictment counts for conveying a List A article and a List B article into prison. The Crown Court ruled that his asserted ignorance of the pills and SIM cards afforded no defence in law, and he pleaded guilty.

His application for leave to appeal against conviction was referred to the full Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the offences required proof that he knew the precise nature of the prohibited articles conveyed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The requisite mens rea for the offences under sections 40B(1)(a) and 40C(1)(a) of the Prison Act 1952 was established. Johnson knew that he was taking a package containing something prohibited into prison, since he believed it contained spice.
2. The statutory provisions do not require the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew the exact contents of the package, the precise nature of each article, or the statutory list in which an article falls. Once a defendant knowingly conveys a package containing a prohibited article into prison, liability for its contents does not depend on specific knowledge of each item.
3. R v M [2009] EWCA Crim 2615 protects persons who may unknowingly bring a prohibited article into prison. It did not apply where the defendant knew that he was bringing in something prohibited. Johnson’s belief that the package contained spice was therefore not an innocent mistake or forgetfulness capable of founding that defence.
4. A contrary construction would permit a person who was given a package and instructed not to open it to avoid liability by remaining deliberately ignorant of its contents. The degree and precision of the defendant’s knowledge remain relevant to the gravity of the offending, sentencing, and potentially the need for a Newton hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed Johnson’s appeal against conviction.
• Peterborough Crown Court: The trial judge ruled that the asserted lack of knowledge of the package’s precise contents disclosed no defence in law. Johnson then pleaded guilty to the indictment counts.
• Magistrates’ court: Johnson pleaded guilty to conveying spice, a List C article, into prison.