R v Jack Nicholas Daniels
[2022] EWCA Crim 1735
R v Osman Omar Osman
26 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1560
Court of Appeal
Osman was caught with messages on his phone showing he was selling drugs. Even though the judge made a small mistake in explaining the law, the court decided the messages clearly showed Osman was actively selling drugs, so his convictions were upheld.
Key Facts
- •Osman Omar Osman was convicted of three offences of being concerned in supplying controlled drugs (contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
- •Police found a phone in his car containing messages relating to drug supply during the Glastonbury Festival, where Osman worked as a steward.
- •Messages detailed offers to supply ketamine, cocaine, and cannabis, specifying quantities and prices.
- •The main trial issue was whether Osman, not another person, used the phone.
- •The defense argued late in the trial that the prosecution hadn't proven actual drug supply, only offers to supply.
- •The prosecution argued that the messages indicated active involvement in supply, particularly a message requesting immediate delivery of cocaine.
Legal Principles
Section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires proof of being concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs, not merely offering to supply.
R v Hughes [1980] 81 Cr.App.R 344, R v Coker [2019] EWCA Crim 420
'Supply' is a broad term encompassing the entire process, not limited to actual delivery or past supply.
R v Martin and Brimecome [2014] EWCA Crim 1940
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
The messages demonstrated active involvement in drug supply, showing available stock, prices, and a request for immediate delivery. While the judge misdirected the jury by suggesting proof of an offer to supply sufficed, this error didn't render the convictions unsafe given the strength of the evidence.