Piotr Laskowski v R

For an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the prosecution must prove an offer to supply a controlled drug to another, with the offered supply intended to occur in the United Kingdom. An offer is complete when made available to be heard or read, whether or not actually received or read. The offeror may be abroad. The common-law presumption against extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction may be displaced where the statute’s purpose and the public interest justify jurisdiction. The substantial measure test is satisfied where a substantial part of the conduct and its harmful consequences are connected with the United Kingdom.

On 30 April 2020, the appellant, who was in the Netherlands, sent an EncroChat message offering to supply 5kg of cocaine to a man in England. The Crown Court at Preston ruled on 24 March 2022 that the conduct constituted an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The appellant pleaded guilty.

The appeal concerned whether the offer was complete when sent abroad or only when received in England, and whether the English courts had jurisdiction under common-law principles of territoriality and extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed. Although the Crown Court judge had adopted an incorrect approach to when the offer was complete, his conclusion that the English courts had jurisdiction was correct and the conviction was safe.

1. Section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 required proof of an offer, an offer to supply a controlled drug to another, and an offered supply which was a supply in the United Kingdom. The statutory conduct involved an offer to make a controlled drug available in the United Kingdom. The words supply to another were not to be read as if they said offer to another. The territorial principle in R v Hussain (Shabbir) [2010] EWCA Crim 970 applied to the location of the supply, but did not require the offer itself to be made in the United Kingdom.

2. An offer was made when communicated to one or more persons in a manner capable of being heard or read. Actual hearing or reading was unnecessary. A text message composed and sent to a mobile phone could therefore constitute an offer, although whether an offer had been made remained a question of fact. The court applied the approach in R v Prior [2004] EWCA Crim 1147: contractual requirements need not be satisfied, and the maker’s lack of genuine intention to supply was irrelevant.

3. Part 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 did not apply. The common-law presumption against the extra-territorial application of criminal statutes could be displaced by express words or necessary implication, having regard to statutory purpose, the mischief addressed and the public interest. The substantial measure test recognised in R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 1) [1996] 2 Cr App R 1, R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 4) [2004] EWCA Crim 631 and R v Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65 applied to the offence of offering to supply controlled drugs.

4. The purpose of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 included controlling the supply and possession of dangerous drugs in the United Kingdom. The intended destination of the drugs, the location of the intended recipient and the location of the harm were material. International comity did not militate against jurisdiction over an overseas offer aimed at supplying drugs in the United Kingdom. The substantial measure test was satisfied because the offer concerned supply in England, the intended recipient was in England and the harmful consequences would have been suffered there. The conviction was accordingly upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 12 May 2023, the court held that the offer was made when the message was composed and sent, but dismissed the appeal because the Crown Court had jurisdiction and the conviction was safe: [2023] EWCA Crim 494.
2. Crown Court at Preston: On 24 March 2022, HH Judge Jefferies KC ruled that the appellant’s conduct constituted an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The appellant then pleaded guilty.