Author Archives: Daniel Stylianou

Continuing where we left off yesterday, let’s look at some of the other proposals in Policy Paper 47.

Those who work in the criminal justice system know that the ‘simple’ possession offence is the one that comes most often before the criminal courts, and Class B is frequently the most common because it covers cannabis, easily the most ‘popular’ of drugs. I can count on one hand (maybe slight hyperbole) the number of people who have said “yes, I had that drug for supply”. It is always for ‘personal use’ and if that’s the case, how do you prosecute those people if personal use is legal? People could legitimately stockpile large quantities for their own use, or cultivate it, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove supply without further intelligence gathering – the very expenditure that this policy paper suggests is inefficient.

The policy paper suggests that a policy of imposing imprisonment for simple possession should be avoided. The situation must have changed since 2001 because anyone – probably everyone – who works in the criminal justice system today will tell you that unless they are charged with dozens of offences, defendants do not receive imprisonment for simple possession. These offences are most usually dealt with by way of a fine and forfeiture and destruction of the drug. I can honestly say, in years of working in the field, I have never seen someone given imprisonment for a simple possession offence where that is the only offence before the court.

Conversely, the policy advocates a zero-tolerance policy on drug driving. That has been overtaken by changes in legislation, as there are now legal limits for drugs use when driving. However, it is hard to imagine reconciling a “use as you see fit” policy on drugs with an “absolutely not” policy on drug driving. People typically do not realise how long drugs stay in the system as they metabolise and I can easily foresee scenarios where people are charged with drug driving and plead not guilty, arguing the government has said they can use drugs, and they didn’t know it was still in their system. This will only pour fuel on the fire of the court backlog issue. This would perhaps be manageable only if, as the policy paper suggests, more was poured into drug awareness and education.

At one point the paper suggests imposing a public policy instruction that it isn’t in the public interest to prosecute certain drugs offences. The drafters of this policy clearly didn’t appreciate the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the role of the legislature. If you don’t want something to be prosecuted, you repeal the offence. You do not try and dictate what the CPS – an arms-length, independent prosecuting agency – does and does not prosecute. Down that road lies madness and a corruption of the role of both the government and the prosecuting agencies. 

As a solicitor working in the field of criminal law, I see people charged with offences involving controlled drugs every day.  There are many offences, but to name just some:

• Possession with intent to supply
• Being concerned in the supply
• Cultivation
• Driving under the influence of drugs
• Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on importing/exporting a controlled drug
• Supply (and intent to supply) psychoactive substances

And of course, the one everyone is most familiar with, the offence of simply being in possession of a controlled drug.

The Law

The law on controlled drugs is quite simple and codified in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I won’t go into it in much detail, but it might be an interesting read for those not already familiar. 

For those unfamiliar with the way courts in England & Wales sentence cases, the sentencing bench (whether that’s a bench of magistrates or a District Judge in the Magistrates’ Court, or a Circuit Judge in the Crown Court) are assisted by sentencing guidelines. Drugs offences come under various different headings, but the guidelines helpfully include a search function, and searching “drug” brings many of them up (hopefully this link will assist).

Liberal Democrat Policy

The 2024 manifesto has a section on Crime and Policing, but does not touch on the party’s policy regarding drugs. However, Policy Paper 47 is based entirely around the policy and offers some interesting perspectives and suggestions. Published in 2001, many of the suggestions have now been outstripped by advances in the law, but I believe – and may well be proven wrong – it remains the most complete policy proposal drafted. On speaking to Liberal Democrats over the years it seems to me that many would support the policies contained within.

I’ve included above a link to the policy paper. To name just a few of the suggestions, we have:

• Implementing a policy of non-prosecution for possession, cultivation for own use, and social supply of cannabis. This would not involve repealing the offence but would involve a public policy declaration that it is not in the public interest to prosecute these types of offences.
• Re-classifying cannabis as a Class C drug and permitting medicinal use of cannabis derivatives.
• Ending imprisonment as a punishment for possession of a Class B or Class C drug, where it was for personal use.

All of these suggestions, and the rest, are said to come with many benefits, primarily:

• Reducing the impact of drug-related crime on law-abiding citizens
• Encouraging more “problem” drug users to come forward for treatment, without fear of being stigmatised
• Increasing the resources available for, and the credibility of, drugs education.

My Response

In my view this policy paper, and subsequent suggestions that the Liberal Democrats should be the party of legalisation, is wrong. I do not doubt the motives or beliefs of those who support legislation, but in my view, legalisation takes us down the wrong path.

The statistics are obviously quite old now, but it was suggested in the late 1990s that the number of “hard” drug addicts (i.e., those using Class A drugs, like crack cocaine) had risen to 270,000, and the size of the drugs market in 1998 was estimated at £6.6 billion (then 0.66% of GDP). The suggestion in the paper is that the policy of criminalising drug use – especially for personal use – was disproportionate and when the figures were balanced (62% of spending then went on prosecutions, as opposed to only 25% of education) the policy clearly favoured criminalisation above everything else. This, the paper suggested, was forcing drug-users to hardened criminals for supply and away from possible education and support resources. All of this, in turn, would only drive drug use up.