Conspiracy to supply drugs, the defences available at Court and exclusion of mobile phone evidence

Drug conspiracies are a serious offence under UK law, and can result in significant penalties for those involved. In this article, we will explore the concept of drug conspiracies, the defences available to individuals who are accused of involvement in such conspiracies, and the consequences of being found guilty of this offence.

Drug conspiracies refer to an agreement between two or more individuals to engage in drug-related criminal activity, such as the distribution or sale of illegal drugs. The offence of conspiracy is committed when the agreement is made, regardless of whether or not any further steps are taken to carry out the criminal activity.

Under UK law, a person who is involved in a drug conspiracy may be charged with a range of offences, including conspiracy to supply drugs, conspiracy to import drugs, and conspiracy to produce drugs. The penalties for these offences can be severe, with individuals facing lengthy terms of imprisonment and significant fines.

However, there are a number of defences available to individuals who are accused of involvement in drug conspiracies. These include:

1. Lack of knowledge or intention: If an individual can show that they did not know that they were involved in a drug conspiracy, or that they did not intend to commit a criminal offence, they may be able to use the defence of lack of knowledge or intention.
2. Duress: If an individual was forced to participate in a drug conspiracy under the threat of violence or other harm, they may be able to use the defence of duress.
3. Entrapment: If law enforcement agencies have induced an individual to participate in a drug conspiracy, they may be able to use the defence of entrapment. However, this defence is only available in limited circumstances and is unlikely to succeed in most cases.
4. Lawful excuse: If an individual can show that they had a lawful excuse for their involvement in a drug conspiracy, such as providing medication to a family member, they may be able to use the defence of lawful excuse.

It is important to note that the availability and success of these defences will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Individuals who are accused of involvement in a drug conspiracy should seek legal advice as soon as possible to determine their options and the best course of action to take.

In conclusion, drug conspiracies are a serious offence under UK law, and individuals who are found guilty of this offence can face significant penalties. However, there are a number of defences available to individuals who are accused of involvement in drug conspiracies, including lack of knowledge or intention, duress, entrapment, and lawful excuse. It is essential that individuals who are accused of involvement in a drug conspiracy seek legal advice as soon as possible to determine their options and the best course of action to take.

Mobile phone evidence

In conspiracy cases, mobile phone evidence has become an increasingly important tool for law enforcement agencies. Mobile phones can contain text messages, emails, call records, and other digital evidence that can be used to link individuals to drug-related criminal activity. However, the admissibility of mobile phone evidence in court can be a contentious issue, and there are legal arguments that can be made to exclude such evidence at trial.

Under UK law, mobile phone evidence is admissible in court if it is relevant to the case and has been obtained lawfully. However, the defence may argue that the evidence is inadmissible on a number of grounds, including:

1. Illegality: If the mobile phone evidence was obtained unlawfully, such as through an illegal search or seizure, it may be argued that it is inadmissible.
2. Reliability: If the mobile phone evidence is unreliable or has been tampered with, it may be argued that it is inadmissible.
3. Privacy: If the mobile phone evidence was obtained in violation of an individual's right to privacy, it may be argued that it is inadmissible.
4. Disclosure: If the prosecution fails to disclose the mobile phone evidence to the defence in a timely manner, it may be argued that it is inadmissible.
5. Prejudice: If the mobile phone evidence is prejudicial to the defendant's case, it may be argued that it is inadmissible.

In order to exclude mobile phone evidence at trial, the defence must convince the judge that the evidence is inadmissible on one or more of these grounds. This can be a challenging task, and the admissibility of mobile phone evidence will depend on the specific facts of each case.

However, it is worth noting that even if mobile phone evidence is admissible, it may not be conclusive. Mobile phones can be shared or stolen, and messages can be misinterpreted or taken out of context. Therefore, it is important for the prosecution to present a compelling case that takes into account all of the available evidence, including mobile phone evidence, in order to secure a conviction.

In conclusion, mobile phone evidence can be a powerful tool in drug conspiracy cases, but its admissibility in court can be a contentious issue. The defence may argue that the evidence is inadmissible on a number of grounds, including illegality, reliability, privacy, disclosure, and prejudice. It is important for the prosecution to present a compelling case that takes into account all of the available evidence, and for the defence to carefully consider their legal arguments to exclude mobile phone evidence at trial. Ultimately, the admissibility of mobile phone evidence will depend on the specific facts of each case, and the judge will need to carefully consider all of the relevant legal arguments before making a decision.

Tariq Khan LL.B (Hons)

Solicitor – Criminal Litigation

Gray’s Defence Solicitors