Criminal Law Case Study: Controlled Substances and Liability Analysis

This case study examines a complex scenario involving the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the production of methamphetamine. The case involves three individuals: a husband and wife (Anna and Pedro) who plan to produce the drug, and a third party (Dexter) who procures the necessary chemicals. The analysis delves into the specific offenses committed by each party, including production, conspiracy, and attempts to commit offenses under the Act. Anna faces charges for inciting, producing and setting up a makeshift lab. Pedro faces similar charges, including conspiracy. Dexter faces charges for procuring chemicals, manslaughter (due to the death of a cleaner during a theft) and theft. The case study explores the application of various sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Criminal Attempts Act, Criminal Law Act, and Serious Crime Act to determine the criminal liability of each individual. The analysis considers the burden of proof, the classification of drugs, and the potential sentencing outcomes, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal ramifications of the actions described.

Find Law, ‘What Is a Controlled Substance?’ (2018) <http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch
arges/what-is-a-controlled-substance.html> accessed 12 March 2018
Introduction
• A controlled substance refers to unlawful drug which can
result in a detrimental effect being caused on the health
and welfare of an individual.
• Owing to these reasons, the government regulates such
substances.
• Any individual, who is found in possession of controlled
substance, can be fined and sentenced, under the law.
• Severity of punishment depends on the Class of controlled
drug.

Parties: Husband and Wife
•Planning to produce Methamphetamine
•Decides to set up makeshift laboratory
in their bathroom
Anna
•Same plans as Anna
•Contacts Dexter to source and supply
chemicals required to produce
Methamphetamine
Pedro

Parties: Dexter
• Procures three chemicals for supplying to Pedro for
producing Methamphetamine
• First substance (Chemical A): Easily available, as left out by teacher
for conducting lessons for that day.
• Second substance (Chemical B): Procured from restricted place.
Access only for Staff and not for students.
• Third substance (Chemical C): Procured by force.
• Punches cleaner, who dies after falling on floor due to the
impact of blow.

Leslie A King, The Misuse of Drugs Act: A Guide for Forensic Scientists (Royal Society of C
hemistry 2007)
Laws surrounding Controlled substance
• Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971: Drugs are categorized as
controlled drugs where they are covered under Schedule 2
of this act.
• Each drug is controlled based on its chemical or proprietary
name, and not its brand name.
Class Part under Schedule 2
Class A Part I
Class B Part II
Class C Part III

Proving that drug is controlled
• In order for a claim to be brought against Anna, Pedro and
Dexter, there is a need to prove that the chemicals which
were found at the home, while the police was at Anna and
Pedro’s home, were the ones required to produce
Methamphetamine.
• Using this point as a defense is not likely to succeed.
• Reason for this is that production of Methamphetamine has
clear set requirements.

Proving that drug is controlled
• Section 7(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971 puts the
burden on the prosecution to show that the drug falls out of
exception.
• Thus, Anna, Pedro and Dexter do not have to prove that
drug is controlled.
• It is for prosecution to prove this.
• However, in this regard, prosecution could bring in forensic
analyst.
• The three chemicals in possession of Dexter could be in
turn used as forensic evidence against the three.

Offences
• In the present instance, no sale of controlled substance had
taken place.
• There was also a lack of possession of controlled substance
in the jurisdiction of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.
• The scenario revolved around the production and occupier
offences for the three parties.
• Each party had certain different category of offence
applicable on them.

Offences: Anna and Pedro
• Here, the relevant offences for the parties are
Parties Offence Sections
Anna • Being concerned in production
• Permitted premises to be used
for producing
• Section 4(2)(b)
• Section 8(a)
Pedro • Being concerned in production
• Permitted premises to be used
for producing
• Section 4(2)(b)
• Section 8(a)

Offences: Dexter
• Here, the relevant offences for the parties are
Parties Offence Sections
Dexter • Production of controlled drug
• Being concerned in production
• For administering controlled drugs
• For preparing the controlled drugs
for administration
• Section 4(2)(a)
• Section 4(2)(b)
• Section 9A(1)
• Section 9A(3)

Offences
• Here, the relevant offences for the parties are
Parties Offence Law
Anna • Incitement of previously
mentioned offences
• Attempting to commit drugs
offence
• Conspiracy to commit a drugs
offence
• Encouraging or assisting in the
commission of an offence
• Section 19 Misuse of Drugs
Act, 1971
• Criminal Attempts Act 1981
• Criminal Law Act 1977
• Part 2 Serious Crimes Act
2007.

Offences
• Here, the relevant offences for the parties are
Parties Offence Law
Pedro • Incitement of previously
mentioned offences
• Participating in an offence out of
UK, which corresponds with an
offence under the Act
• Attempting to commit drugs
offence
• Conspiracy to commit a drugs
offence
• Encouraging or assisting in the
commission of an offence
• Section 19 Misuse of Drugs
Act, 1971
• Section 20 Misuse of Drugs
Act, 1971
• Criminal Attempts Act 1981
• Criminal Law Act 1977
• Part 2 Serious Crimes Act
2007.