Quayle & Ors v R

Quayle & Ors v R

The common law defence of necessity is not available to charges of cultivation, production, importation, possession, or supply of cannabis for medical purposes, as the comprehensive legislative scheme under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and Regulations excludes such a defence. The defence is limited to imminent...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Barry Quayle; Appellant: Reay James Wales; Appellant: Graham Jack Kenny; Appellant: Anthony Taylor; Appellant: May Po Lee; Acquitted Person / Respondent: D (Attorney-General’s Reference) / Mr Ditchfield; Respondent: Regina; Applicant (reference): Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Reference on Point of Law
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; Attorney General's Reference answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Defence of Necessity, Medical Use of Cannabis, Statutory Interpretation, European Convention on Human Rights (article 8)
Criminal Law Drugs Law Human Rights Defence of Necessity Medical Use of Cannabis Statutory Interpretation European Convention on Human Rights (article 8)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Quayle

Appellant

Reay James Wales

Appellant

Graham Jack Kenny

Appellant

Anthony Taylor

Appellant

May Po Lee

Appellant

D (Attorney-General’s Reference) / Mr Ditchfield

Acquitted Person / Respondent

Regina

Respondent

Attorney General

Applicant (reference)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Reference on Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the common law defence of necessity available to charges of cultivation, production, importation, possession, or supply of cannabis for medical purposes?
  2. 2 Does the legislative scheme under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and Regulations exclude such a defence?
  3. 3 Does Article 8 ECHR require recognition of a necessity defence in these circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The common law defence of necessity is not available to charges of cultivation, production, importation, possession, or supply of cannabis for medical purposes, as the comprehensive legislative scheme under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and Regulations excludes such a defence. The defence is limited to imminent threats of death or serious injury from extraneous circumstances, not to the avoidance of pain or discomfort, and does not apply to continuous or planned breaches of the law. Article 8 ECHR does not require recognition of such a defence contrary to the legislative scheme.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; Attorney General's Reference answered in the negative.

Orders

  • Appeals of Quayle, Wales, Kenny, Taylor, and Lee dismissed.
  • Attorney General's Reference: The defence of necessity is not available in these circumstances.