S v Solomon (266/85) [1986] ZASCA 55; [1986] 2 All SA 443 (A) (26 May 1986)

S v Solomon (266/85) [1986] ZASCA 55; [1986] 2 All SA 443 (A) (26 May 1986)

The court held that the statutory definition of 'dealing' in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act must be interpreted in its context and restrictively, given its penal nature. The omission of 'purchase' or 'acquire' from the definition, and the clear legislative distinction between 'dealing' and 'possession', indicate that the legislature did not intend to criminalise the act of purchasing a prohibited substance for personal use as 'dealing'. This applies equally to intermediaries or agents acting solely on behalf of a buyer for personal use. The appellant's conduct, purchasing a Mandrax tablet for another without personal benefit, did not amount to 'dealing' but only to possession. The...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 55
Parties
Appellant: Eric Solomon; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 1986
Case Number
266/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court, With Leave Granted After Dismissal by the Transvaal Provincial Division.
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction for dealing set aside and replaced with conviction for possession. Sentence reduced from five years to two years' imprisonment.
Judges
RABIE, TRENGOVE, BOTHA, JACOBS, SMALBERGER
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Possession Vs Dealing, Mandrax, Agent Liability
Criminal Law Drug Offences Statutory Interpretation Possession Vs Dealing Mandrax Agent Liability

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Solomon

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court, With Leave Granted After Dismissal by the Transvaal Provincial Division.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person acting as an intermediary or agent who purchases a prohibited drug on behalf of a buyer for the buyer's use is guilty of dealing in such drug under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, or only of possession.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory definition of 'dealing' includes the conduct of an agent purchasing for another's use.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct falls within the scope of 'dealing' or 'possession' under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory definition of 'dealing' in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act must be interpreted in its context and restrictively, given its penal nature. The omission of 'purchase' or 'acquire' from the definition, and the clear legislative distinction between 'dealing' and 'possession', indicate that the legislature did not intend to criminalise the act of purchasing a prohibited substance for personal use as 'dealing'. This applies equally to intermediaries or agents acting solely on behalf of a buyer for personal use. The appellant's conduct, purchasing a Mandrax tablet for another without personal benefit, did not amount to 'dealing' but only to possession. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction for dealing set aside and replaced with conviction for possession. Sentence reduced from five years to two years' imprisonment.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The appellant's conviction is altered to one of contravening section 2(b) of Act 41 of 1971 (possession of a prohibited substance).