R v Maginnis [1987] UKHL 4

The defendant was found with cannabis left in his car by a friend, intending to return it when collected. The House of Lords held that returning drugs to a depositor constitutes 'supply' under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as it enables the depositor to use the drugs for their own purposes.

Facts

The respondent, Patrick Terrance Maginnis, was found in possession of 227 grammes of cannabis resin worth approximately £500 in his car. He stated to police that the package had been left by a friend the previous evening and that he expected the friend to collect it. He was charged under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply it unlawfully to another. At trial, the judge ruled that intending to return the drugs to the person who had deposited them constituted intent to supply, whereupon the defendant changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

Issues

The central issue was whether a person in unlawful possession of a controlled drug which has been deposited with him for safe keeping has the intent to supply that drug to another if his intention is simply to return the drug to the person who deposited it with him.

Conflicting Authorities

The Court of Appeal identified an apparent conflict between Reg. v. Delgado [1984] 1 W.L.R. 89, which held that returning drugs to a depositor was supply, and Reg. v. Dempsey (The Times, 22 November 1985), which held that temporary custody did not constitute supply.

Judgment

The House of Lords (by a majority of 4-1, Lord Goff dissenting) allowed the appeal, restored the conviction, and answered the certified question in the affirmative.

Lord Keith of Kinkel (with whom Lords Brandon, Mackay, and Oliver agreed)

Lord Keith held that the word ‘supply’ in its ordinary natural meaning conveys the idea of furnishing or providing something to meet the wants or requirements of another:

“The word ‘supply,’ in its ordinary natural meaning, conveys the idea of furnishing or providing to another something which is wanted or required in order to meet the wants or requirements of that other, it connotes more than the mere transfer of physical control of some chattel or object from one person to another.”

Lord Keith distinguished between a mere transfer to a custodier and a return of drugs to enable the depositor to apply them to his own purposes:

“If a trafficker in controlled drugs sets up a store of these in the custody of a friend whom he thinks unlikely to attract the suspicions of the police, and later draws on the store for the purposes of his trade, or for his own use, the custodier is in my opinion rightly to be regarded as supplying him with drugs.”

He emphasised that the depositor of unlawfully possessed drugs has no legal right to require their return, and the custodier in choosing to return them does something he has a duty not to do.

Lord Goff of Chieveley (Dissenting)

Lord Goff disagreed, holding that the natural and ordinary meaning of ‘supply’ requires making goods available from resources other than those of the recipient:

“I would not describe the redelivery by the depositee to the depositor as a supply of goods, because the goods are simply being returned to him, rather than being made available to him from resources other than his own.”

Lord Goff considered that the Court of Appeal had reached the correct conclusion and expressed concern that the majority interpretation could result in persons being convicted of the more serious offence when they should only be convicted of unlawful possession.

Implications

This decision established that returning controlled drugs to a depositor constitutes ‘supply’ under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The reasoning was that the depositor of unlawfully possessed drugs has no legal right to their return, and returning them enables the depositor to apply the drugs to their own purposes, effectively putting them back into circulation. The decision aligned English law with the Scottish approach in Donnelly v. H.M. Advocate (1985) and confirmed Reg. v. Delgado while distinguishing Reg. v. Dempsey on its facts. The case is significant for drug trafficking prosecutions, broadening the scope of possession with intent to supply to include those acting as custodiers of drugs.

Verdict: Appeal allowed; conviction on Count 1 restored. The certified question, as amended to read ‘Whether a person in unlawful possession of a controlled drug which has been deposited with him for safe keeping has the intent to supply that drug to another if his intention is to return the drug to the person who deposited it with him’, was answered in the affirmative.

Source: R v Maginnis [1987] UKHL 4