---

Home Office

Answer

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the appeal court decisions upholding the convictions of Ruth Wyner and John Brock, he will review the provision of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that disallowed a valid defence. [144471] Mr. Charles Clarke: Ruth Wyner and John Brock were convicted under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) because they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent drug dealing on the premises for which they were responsible. In upholding the convictions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge's summing up was fair and balanced and contained an accurate review of the evidence, including a faithful rehearsal of the appellants' denials that they were aware of the scale of the drug-dealing. The Court of Appeal noted that on the evidence before them, the jury could only have concluded that both appellants were aware of, or shut their eyes to, an obviously significant level of dealing. It would be quite wrong to amend the law to permit managers of premises, be they charity workers or not, to act in this way.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

360 c573W; 144471

Session

2000-01

Subjects

Drugs Misuse Voluntary work Social workers Brock, John Wyner, Ruth

Legislation

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk