Drug Seizure: Weight, Seal and the Trafficking Presumption
At 02:10 a patrol car stops a Proton Wira in a housing area. The driver, 34, is alone. On the rear passenger floor, under a newspaper, is a transparent packet of crystalline substance. A field test is positive for methamphetamine. The packet is weighed at the roadside on a portable scale: 54.1 g gross. At the district police station at 03:05 the same packet is weighed again: 54.1 g. The investigating officer opens the packet at 09:20 to take a sample for the chemist, weighs the remainder at 52.3 g, and reseals it with a new seal. The packet was previously sealed with a station seal at 03:15 by a lance corporal; the IO did not record who cut the first seal. The driver says the car belongs to his brother and he 'did not know' about the packet. The chemist's report later states 51.9 g with 78% purity. The driver has no prior drug record; the brother is untraceable. The DPP asks whether to charge trafficking under s.39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 or possession.
1. Assess the strength of the trafficking case against the possession case.
Read the worked answer
The charging decision turns on possession first, not on weight alone. The packet was on the rear floor of a car owned by the untraceable brother; the driver was alone, but there is no fingerprint or DNA link, no admission of knowledge, and no evidence he placed it there. The net quantity (52.3 g, then 51.9 g by the chemist) is well above the level at which the trafficking presumption under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 may arise, but the presumption cannot fill a gap in proof of possession. The broken seal is a separate problem: the first seal was cut at 09:20 without a recorded cutter, and the weight moved from 54.1 g to 52.3 g before the chemist's 51.9 g. That may have an innocent explanation, but the IO must explain it. On the present file, a possession charge is more defensible than s.39B trafficking; trafficking would depend on proving knowledge and an intact exhibit.
2. What should the IO do now about the seal and the weighing?
Read the worked answer
The IO cannot repair the record retrospectively. He should make a supplementary statement now setting out the seal number applied at 03:15, who applied it, who cut it at 09:20, who was present, why it was opened, the weight before and after sampling, the sample form, and the new seal number. He should check the station diary, CCTV and the lance corporal's statement to identify the cutter. He should photograph the packet, the old seal if retained, and the new seal; dispatch the sample with a chain-of-custody form; and inform the DPP in writing of the irregularity. He should not re-weigh the packet again without a witness, and he should not ask the lance corporal to 'confirm' a memory he does not have. If the first seal cannot be accounted for, the DPP must be told that the exhibit's integrity is contestable.
3. What disclosure and charging issues arise at the DPP's decision?
Read the worked answer
The DPP should consider a possession charge, with trafficking as a fallback only if further evidence links the driver to the packet-fingerprints, phone messages, or the brother's statement. Disclosure must include the sealing irregularity, the weight differences, the missing first-seal record and the fact that the brother cannot be found. The driver's 'did not know' statement should be tested against the packet's position: under a newspaper on the rear floor is not the same as in a locked compartment, but it is also not in the driver's hand. If the DPP proceeds on trafficking, the defence will argue that the exhibit could have been tampered with and that possession is not proved. A possession charge preserves the case without overstating the evidence. The IO should also record whether the field-test kit was properly stored and whether the portable scale was calibrated.