Marwaha v UK Border Revenue Agency (Cash And Compensation Team)

The statutory definition of “poppy straw” is limited by the requirement that the relevant parts of the opium poppy must be “after mowing”. “Mowing” bears its ordinary meaning and does not include careful picking or harvesting which preserves poppy heads for ornamental or floristry use. A purposive interpretation cannot extend the definition to every method of removing poppies from the ground without evidence that this is required by the licensing regime or its underlying purpose. The 1971 Act must be read with the 2001 Regulations. Although importation and exportation of poppy straw are prohibited without a licence, possession, production and supply are exempt.

The appellant imported two consignments of dried poppy heads, some with stalks, for use in the dried-flower trade. The goods were identified as Papaver somniferum. A District Judge condemned the consignments under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, and the Crown Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, holding that “mowing” included harvesting, reaping, picking or any other removal from the soil.

On a case stated appeal, the High Court considered whether the consignments were “poppy straw” under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, whether the Crown Court had adopted the correct statutory meaning of “mowing”, and whether expert evidence was relevant to that legal question.

1. Appeal allowed. The Crown Court had reached the wrong conclusion on the construction of “poppy straw”. The statutory question had one correct answer and was not to be approached by judicial-review deference to the lower court’s choice between possible meanings.
2. The definition in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 covers all parts, except seeds, of the opium poppy “after mowing”. The inclusion of “mowing” limits the definition. If it meant every process by which a poppy was separated from the ground, the reference to mowing would serve no purpose.
3. In ordinary language, poppy heads, with or without stalks, which have been carefully picked or harvested so that their decorative quality is preserved have not been mown. The consignments therefore did not comprise poppy straw.
4. The 1971 Act had to be read with the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The combined scheme prohibited unlicensed importation and exportation but exempted possession, production and supply of poppy straw. Its relevant purpose was consequently the operation of the licensing and reporting regime, not the control of possession or manufacture.
5. The 1953 Protocol and 1961 Single Convention supported a limited construction. Their regime was directed principally to the lawful, generally large-scale manufacture of morphine and related statistical and licensing controls, rather than poppies grown exclusively for ornamental purposes. The Border Agency provided no convincing evidence that the narrower construction created an absurd loophole or practical confusion.
6. Forensic and botanical evidence could establish the species of poppy but could not determine the legal meaning of “mowing”. The third question therefore provided no basis for upholding the Crown Court’s decision. The consignments were not liable to condemnation on the stated basis.

• Crown Court: dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the District Judge’s condemnation order and held that “mowing” included harvesting, picking and every other removal from the soil.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the case stated appeal and held that the imported poppy heads had not been mown and were not “poppy straw”.