R v Sadique (No 2) [2013] EWCA Crim 1150
Facts
Sadique ran a business supplying chemicals and pharmaceutical substances which could have legitimate uses. The prosecution alleged that supplies were made for use as cutting agents in the unlawful drugs trade, assisting offences involving controlled drugs. He was convicted under section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and challenged the way the alleged offences had been combined and described in the indictment. He also challenged the jury directions. The appeal concerned the statutory offence of encouraging or assisting one or more offences, not a claim that possessing every chemical supplied by his business was itself unlawful.
Legal Issue
Was the section 46 charge defective for duplicity or uncertainty, and did the jury directions adequately address assistance to one or more of the specified offences?
Held
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The count fell within section 46's provision for conduct capable of encouraging or assisting one or more of a number of offences, and sufficiently informed the defendant of the alleged criminal conduct. It was not invalid simply because it addressed alternative anticipated offences. The court considered the directions in context and rejected the challenge to their adequacy. The statutory offence still required the relevant belief that one or more offences would be committed and that the defendant's act would encourage or assist. Legitimate uses of the supplied chemicals did not themselves exclude liability, but nor did supply alone establish the required state of mind.
⭐ Legal Principle
Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 can address assistance to one or more of specified alternative offences where its belief requirements are met. Sadique upheld the charge against duplicity and uncertainty objections. The offence requires the statutory mental element, not merely that the supplier ought to have foreseen criminal use.
Significance
Sadique helps explain why encouraging or assisting crime is distinct from personally completing the anticipated offence. The substances supplied need not themselves be prohibited for supply to assist a crime, but a lawful product's possible misuse does not automatically criminalise its seller. Identify the anticipated offences, the act capable of assistance and the required beliefs. Section 46 also contains a particular structure for uncertainty about which offence will occur; its wording must not be replaced by a loose test of general suspiciousness.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did legitimate uses of the chemicals not answer the allegation?
A product with lawful uses can still be supplied in circumstances meeting an offence of encouraging or assisting crime. The prosecution had to connect the supply to the specified anticipated offences and establish the statutory mental element. The case did not make possession or ordinary sale of those chemicals inherently unlawful.
Was it enough that Sadique ought to have predicted criminal use?
No. Section 46 requires the relevant beliefs concerning commission of one or more offences and the assisting effect of the defendant's act. An objective ought-to-have-known standard would dilute those requirements. Evidence of circumstances may prove belief, but it is not a substitute for the statutory mental element.
Why was listing alternative anticipated offences not necessarily duplicitous?
Section 46 is specifically structured to address assistance to one or more of a number of offences, subject to its conditions and identification requirements. The court held that the count sufficiently indicated the criminal conduct alleged. That does not remove the need for a properly specified charge and accurate jury directions.