R v Sadique [2013] EWCA Crim 1150; [2014] 1 WLR 986; [2013] 4 All ER 924

Encouraging or assisting crime involves actions that support or promote illegal activities, such as providing resources or motivation for criminal behavior.

• Legal systems address this by criminalizing such support to hold individuals accountable and deter criminal activities, reinforcing that both direct and indirect participation in crimes have legal consequences.

• When someone encourages or assists in offences with the belief that crimes will be committed, they are held accountable for their actions.

• This belief is key in determining guilt, as it shows the individual intended to facilitate criminal behavior.

• The law targets those who foresee and support criminal acts, ensuring they face legal penalties.

A charge of assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of Classes A and B involves allegations of helping distribute drugs, whether directly or indirectly.

• Class A drugs include high-risk substances like heroin, while Class B includes drugs like cannabis.

• Such charges reflect the serious nature of drug crimes and the legal consequences for those involved.

Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 criminalizes encouraging or assisting serious crimes. It targets individuals who intentionally support or promote serious criminal offenses, enhancing legal efforts to prevent and address such crimes and ensuring accountability for both direct and indirect facilitators.

Omar Sadique (“Defendant”) faced trial on indictment for four distinct counts under Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which pertains to assisting the commission of offences with the belief that one or more of those offences would be committed.

The Crown's case centered around allegations that the defendant utilized his national distribution business to provide chemical agents to drug dealers.

• These chemicals, although lawful for sale, were allegedly used by the dealers to adulterate or "cut" illegal drugs.

• The indictment specified four counts, each addressing different aspects of this alleged criminal activity:

  1. Assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of classes A and B.

  2. Assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of class A.

  3. Assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of class A or class B.

  4. Assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of class B.

Each count detailed the nature of the assistance provided by the defendant in relation to the controlled drugs involved.

• The prosecution's evidence demonstrated that the Defendant was indeed involved in the distribution of chemicals that could facilitate the manufacture of both Class A and Class B drugs.

• However, it was a point of agreement that while the defendant supplied these chemicals, he did not directly handle or supply the drugs themselves.

During the trial, the judge instructed the jury that due to the nature of the charges, the defendant could only be convicted of one count.

• The specific count for which the defendant could be convicted depended on which class or classes of drugs the jury found the Defendant had believed would be supplied as a result of his actions.

• This instruction was based on the premise that it would be unreasonable to convict the Defendant on multiple counts that were inherently linked to the same underlying activity.

Ultimately, the jury convicted the Defendant on count 1, which involved assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of classes A and B.

Following his conviction, the Defendant appealed the decision, arguing that count 1 was flawed due to issues of duplicity.

• The appeal focused on whether the single count of assisting in the supply of controlled drugs of classes A and B was improperly formulated or presented, given the evidence and the judge's directions regarding the possible convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court affirmed that the specific provisions of Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the ancillary provisions of the Act had supported the validity of an indictment charging an offence under Section 46 with reference to the encouragement or assistance of one or more offences.

• The court acknowledged that drafting a count in this manner aligned with practical realities, as a defendant might reasonably have believed their conduct would aid in the commission of various offences by another party, without knowing the exact offence or offences intended or committed by that party.

The judgment emphasized that it was not necessary for the Crown to prove that the defendant had a specific belief regarding the exact drug-related offence that those they were assisting or encouraging would or did commit.

• Instead, it sufficed that the jury was satisfied that the defendant was involved in supplying chemicals that, if criminally misused, could facilitate the commission of offences related to the supply of Class A and/or Class B drugs.

• Additionally, it had to be shown that at the relevant time, the defendant had believed their actions would encourage or assist in the commission of these drug-related offences, and that this belief was consistent with the intended or actual use of the chemicals by the recipients.

Therefore, count 1 of the indictment was deemed appropriately charged and properly fell within the scope of Section 46 of the 2007 Act.

• The count was neither considered bad for duplicity nor defective for uncertainty.

• The appeal was rejected on these grounds.

The court addressed Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which criminalizes encouraging or assisting serious crimes.

• Defendant was convicted for assisting in the supply of controlled drugs after providing chemicals used by drug dealers to cut drugs.

• The indictment included four counts related to different classes of drugs.

The court noted that it was not necessary for the Crown to prove Defendants specific belief about the exact drug-related offences, if it was shown he intended to facilitate criminal activity.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Count 1 appropriately fell within the scope of the law.