REGINA v Grant

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried for possession of cannabis with intent to supply. He was the front seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by the police, which contained three occupants. The driver had no incriminating items. The Appellant had a rucksack at his feet containing approximately 18 or 19 grams of cannabis, digital scales, about 1.8 grams of additional cannabis, a condom box containing 34 empty self-seal bags, cigarette papers, and a rolling machine. The rear seat passenger possessed money and about 11 or 12 grams of cannabis and was dealt with separately by way of caution. The Appellant admitted possession but disputed intent to supply, claiming the cannabis was for personal use and that the empty bags were for separating his private reserves. He emphasized that the bags were empty and not charged as potential dealing supplies, citing a previous conviction involving similar paraphernalia.

During jury deliberations, the jury requested to see the exhibits. Due to an oversight, the jury was shown a box containing all exhibits found in the car and at the rear passenger's home, including items not attributable to the Appellant. This included additional cannabis and more self-seal bags than those properly linked to the Appellant. This occurred during a midday adjournment, and the mistake was discovered after the jury had signaled a verdict.

The trial judge (Recorder) allowed the jury to return their verdict to preserve the possibility of an acquittal, recognizing that if the verdict was not acquittal, grounds for appeal would exist. The jury returned a conviction, and the appeal followed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the verdict was safe given the jury was exposed to exhibits not properly attributable to the Appellant.
2. Whether the procedural error concerning the exhibits warranted quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant admitted possession but denied intent to supply, arguing the quantity was for personal use.
• The empty self-seal bags were not evidence of dealing as they were uncharged and were for personal separation of cannabis.
• The presence of additional bags and cannabis not attributable to him in the jury’s view prejudiced the verdict.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown accepted that the conviction could not be sustained due to the jury seeing evidence not properly linked to the Appellant.
• The Crown supported a retrial on the same charge.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the safety of the verdict in light of the procedural error whereby the jury was shown exhibits that included cannabis and paraphernalia attributable to another individual. The court recognized that the jury’s exposure to a larger quantity of cannabis and more self-seal bags than those properly linked to the Appellant could have influenced their verdict, particularly since the Appellant’s defence relied heavily on the fact that the bags were empty and not indicative of intent to supply. The court agreed with the Recorder’s approach to preserve the jury’s right to acquit but ultimately concluded that the verdict was unsafe. The court also noted that, with hindsight, it might have been appropriate to inform the jury of the mistake and invite them to reconsider, but understood why this was not done at trial. The Crown’s acceptance that the conviction could not stand was a significant factor in the court’s decision to allow the appeal and quash the conviction.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.

A retrial is ordered on the same single count of possession with intent to supply. The Appellant is to be arraigned on a fresh indictment within two months unless otherwise directed by the court. The retrial will take place at Leeds unless the Presiding Judges of the North Eastern Circuit direct otherwise.

The Appellant is granted unconditional bail pending retrial, consistent with his bail status before the trial. The court did not establish any new precedent but addressed the direct consequence of the procedural error on the safety of the verdict and the fairness of the trial process.