DRUGS BAN DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS RIGHTS

Regina v Taylor (Paul Simon)

Before Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Davis and Sir Richard Tucker

Judgment October 23, 2001

The prohibition in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in relation to the supply
of cannabis did not amount to an interference with a defendant's rights
under article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights to manifest
his religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance, in view of the
provisions of article 9.2.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in refusing an application
by Paul Simon Taylor for leave to appeal against conviction of possession
of cannabis on his plea of guilty following a ruling by Judge Stone at
Inner London Crown Court that in the light of the Crown's concession that
Rastafarianism was a religion and that the drugs were to be used for an act
of worship, article 9 was engaged but that the article 9.1 rights were
qualified by article 9.2.

Mr Owen Davies, QC and Mr Ben Cooper, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal
Appeals, for the defendant; Mr Christopher Hehir and Mr James Lofthouse for
the Crown.

LORD JUSTICE ROSE said that the judge was properly entitled to rely upon
the inferences to be drawn from the United Kingdom's subscription to the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the United Nations Convention
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988,
that an unqualified ban on possession of cannabis with intent to supply was
necessary to combat the public health and safety dangers of drugs.

He was also, in the exercise of his discretion, fully entitled to reach the
conclusion, which he did, that no stay was appropriate in relation to the
prosecution of the defendant and that questions of proportionality and
necessity were not proper questions for consideration by a jury.

Their Lordships accepted the Crown's submission that a distinction had to
be drawn between legislation which prohibited conduct because it related to
or was motivated by religious belief, and legislation which was of general
application but prohibited, for other reasons: conduct which happened to be
encouraged or required by religious belief.