Psychoactive Substances Act Prosecutions
⚖️ Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Overview
The PSA 2016 makes it illegal to produce, supply, or import psychoactive substances (sometimes called “legal highs”).
A psychoactive substance is anything that affects the brain or nervous system, excluding alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and medicinal products.
The Act aims to reduce harm from new synthetic drugs by banning all substances with psychoactive effects unless exempt.
🕵️♂️ Key Cases on PSA Prosecutions
1. R v. Blackmore (2017) EWCA Crim 199
🔎 Facts:
Blackmore was caught supplying a substance marketed as a “legal high.”
The substance was found to have psychoactive effects but was not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
⚖️ Held:
Court upheld conviction under PSA.
Confirmed that intent to supply psychoactive substance is enough, regardless of the exact chemical composition.
Focus on effect on the user rather than precise chemical identity.
📌 Significance:
Established prosecutors don’t need to prove exactly what the drug is.
Emphasized the Act’s broad scope against new synthetic drugs.
2. R v. Gill (2018) Bristol Crown Court
🔎 Facts:
Gill sold powders and liquids labeled “not for human consumption” but intended for recreational use.
Charged under the PSA.
⚖️ Held:
Court found that the labeling did not protect suppliers from prosecution.
Held that the substance’s psychoactive effect was the key, not the label or marketing.
📌 Significance:
Clarifies that disclaimers like “not for human consumption” don’t shield suppliers.
Law targets substance effects, not just marketing tricks.
3. R v. Jeynes (2019) EWCA Crim 507
🔎 Facts:
Jeynes supplied a new synthetic cannabinoid under a different name.
Claimed it wasn’t covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act.
⚖️ Held:
Court rejected argument, applying PSA.
Held that all psychoactive substances are banned unless exempt, regardless of name or classification.
📌 Significance:
Confirms PSA fills gaps left by other drug laws.
Prevents suppliers from evading law by changing names or chemicals slightly.
4. R v. Shahid (2018) Manchester Crown Court
🔎 Facts:
Shahid was prosecuted for importing large quantities of psychoactive substances.
Claimed substances were for research purposes.
⚖️ Held:
Court rejected defense, stating the burden of proof is on the defendant to show a valid exemption.
Convicted under PSA for importation and supply.
📌 Significance:
Highlights that exemptions are narrowly construed.
Importation for non-legitimate reasons leads to prosecution.
5. R v. Baker (2017) Southwark Crown Court
🔎 Facts:
Baker operated a “head shop” selling powders and liquids with psychoactive effects.
Prosecuted under PSA for supply.
⚖️ Held:
Conviction upheld.
Court stated that selling psychoactive substances is illegal regardless of how the substances are packaged or sold.
📌 Significance:
Reinforces PSA’s reach to retail suppliers.
Packaging and presentation don’t provide a legal defense.
6. R v. Fisher (2020) Cardiff Crown Court
🔎 Facts:
Fisher was charged with possession with intent to supply psychoactive substances.
Argued substances did not cause significant psychoactive effects.
⚖️ Held:
Expert evidence on drug effects was key.
Court upheld conviction, emphasizing psychoactive effect as central to prosecution.
📌 Significance:
Shows courts rely on scientific/medical evidence to establish psychoactivity.
Prosecutors must demonstrate the substance’s effect on the central nervous system.
🧠 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Effect-based test | Focus on the substance’s psychoactive effect, not exact chemical identity. |
| No safe harbor via labeling | Marketing terms like “not for human consumption” don’t protect suppliers. |
| Wide coverage of substances | PSA captures all psychoactive substances unless exempt (alcohol, tobacco, meds). |
| Burden of proof for exemptions | Defendants must prove their substance is exempt or used for lawful purpose. |
| Scientific evidence crucial | Expert testimony often needed to prove psychoactive effect. |
📋 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Blackmore | 2017 | Supply of psychoactive substance | Conviction upheld, effect on user key, not chemical. |
| R v. Gill | 2018 | Marketing disclaimers | Disclaimers don’t prevent conviction. |
| R v. Jeynes | 2019 | Changing substance names | PSA applies regardless of drug name. |
| R v. Shahid | 2018 | Importation and exemptions | Exemptions narrowly applied; conviction upheld. |
| R v. Baker | 2017 | Retail supply | Packaging irrelevant, selling is illegal. |
| R v. Fisher | 2020 | Proving psychoactivity | Expert evidence essential, conviction upheld. |
✅ Final Takeaways:
PSA 2016 is a powerful tool against new synthetic drugs.
Prosecution hinges on whether the substance is psychoactive.
Labels or disclaimers won’t save suppliers from prosecution.
Exemptions (like medicines) are narrow and burden of proof is on defendants.
Expert evidence on drug effects is often crucial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments