Do possession offenses require mental state?

cevy

This is about a British case –

"The most authoritative judicial pronouncement on the knowledge requirements of the British act is Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1969) 2 A.C. 256, (1968) 2 All E.R. 356. The facts in that case were relatively simple. The luckless Warner was stopped by police while he was driving his van. Inside a box in the back of the vehicle, police found twenty thousand amphetamine tablets. Warner claimed ignorance; he had, he said, been given the parcel by a friend who had told him that it contained perfume, which Warner sold as a sideline. The House of Lords was called upon to decide whether Warner would be guilty of amphetamine possession even if he did indeed believe that his package held perfume.

"The grave import of this holding is made clear by the striking example used by Lord Pearce: Though I reasonably believe the tablets which I possess to be aspirin, yet if they turn out to be heroin I am in possession of heroin tablets. This would be so I think even if I believed them to be sweets."

Is Irish drug law the same? Possession without mental state is still possession? Seems kinda harsh, but also I understand that it would be hard to prove the mental state requirement.

Vestiapx

cevy wrote: »

This is about a British case –

"The most authoritative judicial pronouncement on the knowledge requirements of the British act is Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1969) 2 A.C. 256, (1968) 2 All E.R. 356. The facts in that case were relatively simple. The luckless Warner was stopped by police while he was driving his van. Inside a box in the back of the vehicle, police found twenty thousand amphetamine tablets. Warner claimed ignorance; he had, he said, been given the parcel by a friend who had told him that it contained perfume, which Warner sold as a sideline. The House of Lords was called upon to decide whether Warner would be guilty of amphetamine possession even if he did indeed believe that his package held perfume.

"The grave import of this holding is made clear by the striking example used by Lord Pearce: Though I reasonably believe the tablets which I possess to be aspirin, yet if they turn out to be heroin I am in possession of heroin tablets. This would be so I think even if I believed them to be sweets."

Is Irish drug law the same? Possession without mental state is still possession? Seems kinda harsh, but also I understand that it would be hard to prove the mental state requirement.

I wondered about this when I worked in DHL. If I'm delivering a parcel and it turns out it contains drugs then I assume I'm not in trouble but does that not mean a drug dealer could simply become a courier and hide the drugs in plain sight?

LMHC

cevy wrote: »

This is about a British case –

"The most authoritative judicial pronouncement on the knowledge requirements of the British act is Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1969) 2 A.C. 256, (1968) 2 All E.R. 356. The facts in that case were relatively simple. The luckless Warner was stopped by police while he was driving his van. Inside a box in the back of the vehicle, police found twenty thousand amphetamine tablets. Warner claimed ignorance; he had, he said, been given the parcel by a friend who had told him that it contained perfume, which Warner sold as a sideline. The House of Lords was called upon to decide whether Warner would be guilty of amphetamine possession even if he did indeed believe that his package held perfume.

"The grave import of this holding is made clear by the striking example used by Lord Pearce: Though I reasonably believe the tablets which I possess to be aspirin, yet if they turn out to be heroin I am in possession of heroin tablets. This would be so I think even if I believed them to be sweets."

Is Irish drug law the same? Possession without mental state is still possession? Seems kinda harsh, but also I understand that it would be hard to prove the mental state requirement.

Mental state doesn't come into it. Possession is possession be it drugs, weapons, stolen property. If you claim to not know it was drugs they can charge you with failing to distinguish what you were in possession of I'm not sure of the worthing of the charge. But I'll give you an example a guy got caught with a lot of weed 2 weeks ago inside jackets in interview he claimed to not know he was moving drugs he thought he was selling fake Canada goose jackets- Plausible indeed not known to police and drugs were in jackets with no dabs on them.

Charge with concerning himself in the supply of drugs and also charged with sale and supply.

I think the charge is being reckless in the fact.

LMHC

Vestiapx wrote: »

I wondered about this when I worked in DHL. If I'm delivering a parcel and it turns out it contains drugs then I assume I'm not in trouble but does that not mean a drug dealer could simply become a courier and hide the drugs in plain sight?

Yes you are in trouble . if your in possession and them drugs come back from FSI as class A or B your being charged.

Vestiapx

LMHC wrote: »

Mental state doesn't come into it. Possession is possession be it drugs, weapons, stolen property. If you claim to not know it was drugs they can charge you with failing to distinguish what you were in possession of I'm not sure of the worthing of the charge. But I'll give you an example a guy got caught with a lot of weed 2 weeks ago inside jackets in interview he claimed to not know he was moving drugs he thought he was selling fake Canada goose jackets- Plausible indeed not known to police and drugs were in jackets with no dabs on them.

Charge with concerning himself in the supply of drugs and also charged with sale and supply.

I think the charge is being reckless in the fact.

Is being reckless with parcels a crime
Canada goose guy was in UK so he's fecked but is it the same here https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/man-41-who-had-cannabis-worth-1m-in-his-van-claims-he-thought-it-was-knock-off-canada-goose-jackets-court-hears-40479852.html

Vestiapx

LMHC wrote: »

Yes you are in trouble . if your in possession and them drugs come back from FSI as class A or B your being charged.

Otherwise you have a way of carrying drugs without issue right? But how is that fair on the driver? If someone comeinto a DHL depot and sends a parcel how would they know what's in teh parcel ?

LMHC

Vestiapx wrote: »

Is being reckless with parcels a crime
Is there a link to the Gosse's jacket guy?

Being reckless with the fact of not being sure of what is in the parcel is a crime. When I was a pup I used the defence I didn't know. 3 years 9 months later I walked out of mountjoy haha.

And here's the link https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/man-41-who-had-cannabis-worth-1m-in-his-van-claims-he-thought-it-was-knock-off-canada-goose-jackets-court-hears-40479852.html

LMHC

Vestiapx wrote: »

Otherwise you have a way of carrying drugs without issue right? But how is that fair on the driver? If someone comeinto a DHL depot and sends a parcel how would they know what's in teh parcel ?

That's why police do controlled deliveries if they are intercepted save an innocent courier being caught up. But if its the oul ibwas doing a run from Rotterdam for a mate I never knew the 2.5 million of yayo was in the back exuse your going to the nick.

Vestiapx

LMHC wrote: »

Being reckless with the fact of not being sure of what is in the parcel is a crime. When I was a pup I used the defence I didn't know. 3 years 9 months later I walked out of mountjoy haha.

And here's the link https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/man-41-who-had-cannabis-worth-1m-in-his-van-claims-he-thought-it-was-knock-off-canada-goose-jackets-court-hears-40479852.html

Thanks, was mountjiy bad? I mean of course it was but do you get over that ****? You seem a smart enough person have you been able to get a job and **** after all that? I think loads of people did **** when they were young that if they had been caught they would have done prison for but you sorts grow out of stuff when you get older less brave or something.

LMHC

Vestiapx wrote: »

Thanks, was mountjiy bad? I mean of course it was but do you get over that ****? You seem a smart enough person have you been able to get a job and **** after all that? I think loads of people did **** when they were young that if they had been caught they would have done prison for but you sorts grow out of stuff when you get older less brave or something.

I wish mate. I'm anonymous here so I don't mind saying I made plenty of mistakes sadly I got 12 year 2 suspended a few years ago. I was released in February this year after serving 7 and a half years of the 10. Hopefully I never go back, getting older now.

But yeah the possession charges definitely need to be looked at as a lot of innocents have been caught up with these charges and have went to prison genuinely not knowing they were moving drugs.

Victor

Vestiapx wrote: »

I wondered about this when I worked in DHL. If I'm delivering a parcel and it turns out it contains drugs then I assume I'm not in trouble but does that not mean a drug dealer could simply become a courier and hide the drugs in plain sight?

A bona fide courier should be able to avail of a common carrier defence if carrying* in the course of their work duties. Nixers or specific knowledge would be a whole other matter. The Garda would expect cooperation from the courier and their employer.


* This would work for goods, not trafficking people.