R. v. Hunt, (1986) 79 N.R. 220 (HL)

• Case Date: December 04, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 79 N.R. 220 (HL)

R. v. Hunt (1986), 79 N.R. 220 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hunt

Indexed As: R. v. Hunt

House of Lords

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Ackner London, England

December 4, 1986.

Summary:

Hunt was charged with possession of morphine (a controlled drug) contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (U.K.). A regulation provided that any preparation containing not more than 0.2% of morphine was not a controlled drug. The Crown proved that Hunt had possession of a white powder that contained morphine, caffeine and atropine but the Crown did not prove the percentage of morphine in the white powder. The trial judge convicted Hunt. Hunt appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - see [1986] Q.B. 125. Hunt appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and acquitted Hunt on the ground that the Crown failed to prove that the white powder was not morphine in the form permitted by regulation.

Common Law - Topic 3

Elements - Change - The House of Lords stated that the common law adapts itself and evolves to meet the changing patterns and needs of society and that it is not static (see paragraph 35).

Criminal Law - Topic 10.9

General principles - Elements of offence v. exceptions - Morphine was a controlled drug under s. 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (U.K.) - A regulation provided that any preparation containing not more than 0.2% morphine was not a controlled drug - Hunt was charged with possession of morphine, a controlled drug, but the Crown did not prove the percentage of morphine in the substance found in Hunt's possession - The House of Lords held that the exclusion in the regulation was not an exception (to be proved by an accused) but was an essential element of the offence to be proved by the Crown - See paragraphs 48 and 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5217

Evidence - Burden of proof - Allocation of (between Crown and accused) - The House of Lords stated that a court should be very slow to draw an inference from the language of a statute that Parliament intended to impose an onerous duty on a defendant to prove his innocence in a criminal case (see paragraph 41) - The court stated that the cases show that courts have held the burden lies on a defendant in situations where the burden can be easily discharged - See paragraph 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 5218

Evidence - Burden of proof - Respecting defences - A judge of the English House of Lords stated that where a statute, expressly or by necessary implication, places a burden of proof on an accused, the burden is one of persuasion and is not only an evidential burden - See paragraphs 68 to 70.

Narcotic Control - Topic 508

Offences - General principles - Elements of offence v. exceptions [see Criminal Law - Topic 10.9 above].

Narcotic Control - Topic 610

Offences - Possession - Evidence - Inculpatory acts by accused - A judge of the English House of Lords stated that where an accused destroys a substance suspected of being a controlled drug, that such destruction constitutes prima facie evidence that the accused was in possession of a controlled drug - See paragraph 66.

Narcotic Control - Topic 632

Offences - Possession - Burden of proof - Allocation of burden of proof [see Criminal Law - Topic 5217 above].

Cases Noticed:

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462, consd. [paras. 8, 17, 36 and 57].

R. v. Edwards, [1975] Q.B. 27, refd to. [paras. 17, 24, 37, 44 and 71].

McNaghten's Case (1983), 10 CI. & Fin. 200, refd to. [para. 19].

Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1942] A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 20 and 58].

R. v. Turner (1816), 5 M. & S. 206, refd to. [para. 23].

Apothecaries Co. v. Bentley (1824), 1 C. & P. 538, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Scott (1921), 86 J.P. 69, refd to. [para. 23].

Jayesena v. The Queen, [1970] A.C. 618, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Jarvis (1756), 1 East 643n, refd to. [para. 29].

Spieres v. Parker (1786), 1 Term Rep. 141, refd to. [para. 30].

Taylor v. Humphries (1864), 17 C.B.(N.S.) 539, refd to. [para. 31].

Davis v. Scrace (1869), L.R. 4 C.P. 172, refd to. [para. 32].

Nimmo v. Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd., [1968] A.C. 107, refd to. [paras. 33, 40, 44 and 62]; folld. [para. 38].

R. v. Oliver, [1944] K.B. 68, refd to. [paras. 36 and 42].

R. v. Putland and Sorrell, [1946] 1 All E.R. 85, refd to. [paras. 36 and 42].

John v. Humphreys, [1955] 1 W.L.R. 325, refd to. [para. 36].

Robertson v. Bannister, [1973] R.T.R. 109, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Ewens, [1967] 1 Q.B. 322, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Burke (1978), 67 Cr. App. R. 220, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. MacPherson, [1973] R.T.R. 157, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Cousins, [1982] Q.B. 526, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Davies (1913), 8 Cr. App. R. 211, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Schama and Abramovitch (1914), 11 Cr. App. R. 45, refd to. [para. 57].

Gatland v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1968] 2 Q.B. 279, folld. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (U.K.), sect. 5, sect. 7(1) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Phipson on Evidence (13th Ed. 1982), p. 51, n. 68 [para. 19].

Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, Evidence, general (1972), (U.K.), Cmnd. 4991 [para. 45].

Foster's Crown Law (1762), p. 255 [para. 57].

Counsel:

K.H. Zucker, Q.C., and G.W. Greenwood, for the appellant, Hunt;

A. Hacking, Q.C., and M. Warren, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Ackner of the House of Lords at London, England on October 20, 21 and 22, 1986.

The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on December 4, 1986 and the following opinions were filed:

Lord Keith of Kinkel - see paragraph 1;

Lord Templeman - see paragraphs 2 to 9;

Lord Griffiths - see paragraphs 10 to 52;

Lord Mackay of Clashfern - see paragraphs 53 to 55;

Lord Ackner - see paragraphs 56 to 72.