Possessing a bomb you weren't aware of

[J Newman]

Just something I've been wondering about, re: exploding pagers.

Can someone be prosecuted or convicted of the crime of possession of a
bomb, especially since it is a strict liability offense, if they claim
they never knew it was a bomb and don't even have the means to be able
to set it off anyway?

What about other contraband like drugs, if nefarious players use
delivery services as unwitting mules?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman
Just something I've been wondering about, re: exploding pagers.
Can someone be prosecuted or convicted of the crime of possession of a
bomb, especially since it is a strict liability offense, if they claim
they never knew it was a bomb and don't even have the means to be able
to set it off anyway?

Quick googling while waiting for someone knowledgable to come along suggests
that possessing explosives is not, or at least no longer is, a strict
liability offence:

https://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-r-v-copeland-2020-uksc-8/

Post by J Newman
What about other contraband like drugs, if nefarious players use
delivery services as unwitting mules?

Apparently possessing scheduled poisons *is* strict liability according
anecdote, referring to the Poisons Act 1972.

This applies to non-medicinal poisons.


I can find no quick info re drugs!

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman
Just something I've been wondering about, re: exploding pagers.
Can someone be prosecuted or convicted of the crime of possession of a
bomb, especially since it is a strict liability offense, if they claim
they never knew it was a bomb and don't even have the means to be able
to set it off anyway?

Quick googling while waiting for someone knowledgable to come along suggests
that possessing explosives is not, or at least no longer is, a strict
https://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-r-v-copeland-2020-uksc-8/

That's not quite what that's saying. In that case the defendant
knowingly and deliberately created explosives. They wanted to use
the defence that their own self-education was a "lawful object[ive]",
but were not permitted to do so. The ruling you link to there doesn't
even say that self-education is a lawful objective which allows you to
produce explosives, but it does say that the defendant should have
been allowed to run that defence at trial.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by J Newman
What about other contraband like drugs, if nefarious players use
delivery services as unwitting mules?

Apparently possessing scheduled poisons *is* strict liability according
anecdote, referring to the Poisons Act 1972.
This applies to non-medicinal poisons.

I don't think it is, because "possession" requires intent. In addition,
possession of poisons has statutory defences around knowledge that
mirror those in the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Post by Roger Hayter
I can find no quick info re drugs!

See my other response in this thread.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by J Newman
Just something I've been wondering about, re: exploding pagers.
Can someone be prosecuted or convicted of the crime of possession of a
bomb, especially since it is a strict liability offense, if they claim
they never knew it was a bomb and don't even have the means to be able
to set it off anyway?
What about other contraband like drugs, if nefarious players use
delivery services as unwitting mules?

Legally, "possession" requires intent, although unfortunately I don't
know where this is defined - presumably case law somewhere. If you
don't know you have something then you are not in possession of it.

In addition, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s28 provides a defence that
if you are intentionally in possession of illegal drugs but you thought
they were something else (most likely another, legal, drug, I should
imagine) then you have a defence to the crime of drugs possession.