Still trying to work this one out. Young man on trial for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, on the basis of joint enterprise. That is, the police had seen him and a friend parked up in his car, searched the two men and found his friend — who pleaded guilty — with a pocket full of wraps of cocaine and heroin. Prosecution want to argue that the two were in it together, primarily on the basis that the young man was less than frank when the police interviewed him and that there were a few suspicious indications when they searched his home. Certainly I can see why they were suspicious of him but, really, there wasn’t enough to convict him of more than being a bit of an idiot with some dodgy friends who probably (and no more than probably) himself uses a bit of the hard stuff for recreational purposes now and again.
There definitely wasn’t enough evidence there to get anywhere near the criminal standard of proof required to establish that even knew his chum had anything illegal in his pocket, let alone to establish they were engaged in a joint enterprise, and it didn’t take the jury long to find him not guilty.
Anyway, one of the things that roused the police’s and CPS’s suspicions was that he’d got a roll of cling-film in his bedroom, rather than, as one might expect, in his kitchen. It wasn’t, though, the same type of cling-film that his friend had used to make his wraps (the forensic science people had checked) so that didn’t really get anyone anywhere. Nevertheless, there’s an obvious inference — not, I would argue,one that’s germane to the charge on the indictment, which was being part of a joint enterprise to possess heroin and crack cocaine with intent to supply on such-and-such a date with so-and-so, rather than at some point in recent months having made up a wrap of something illegal, or having re-wrapped his own personal supply, of which there was, literally, nothing more than a trace or two (though there obviously had both some cocaine and some heroin in the room at some point) or something equally vague — but an obvious inference, nevertheless, and one worth chucking in.
It was given more weight by his obviously less-than-frank answer about why he’d got a roll of cling-film in his bedroom he gave during questioning by the police; wrapping the remains of a Chinese take-away, it seems. He’d clearly been given advice on this point — on the lines of ‘C’mon…’ — because learned counsel for the defence asked him about this point before the prosecution had a chance to have fun with it.
‘No. It wasn’t for wrapping Chinese food. I was embarrassed to tell the police at the time, but it was for the purposes of oral sex. ‘
Silence in court as everyone tried to take in the implications. Learned counsel — young, female and very attractive learned counsel — took a deep breath and tried to carry on as if nothing had happened, but the learned judge wanted to make sure he’d heard properly, since he’d just been complaining the defendant was mumbling, so his honour was finding it difficult to take notes.
Did I hear your client aright, Miss …. . He appeared to say he had the cling-film in his bedroom ‘for the purposes of oral sex’?Yes. Your honour heard correctly.
You could see his honour was dying to explore the implications of this one, but clearly decided it might be — err — injudicious so to do, so no one else did, either.
But, other than the obvious — which seems to me even less probable than the Chinese take-away explanation — can anyone give a rational explanation of what this chap thought we were supposed to imagine he and his girl-friend were doing with the cling-film? I’ve racked my brains, and other than his girl-friend mummifying parts of him, just in case, I’m stymied.