R v Altham [2006]

R v Altham [2006] EWCA Crim 7 is a notable case where the Court of Appeal, following its earlier reasoning in Quayle, rejected the defence of necessity, holding that recognising such a defence would directly conflict with the purpose and effect of the statutory scheme, which strictly regulates the possession and supply of controlled substances.

In this case, the defendant had been using cannabis to relieve chronic pain resulting from a serious road traffic accident. He was charged with possession of a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and sought to argue that his actions were justified on the grounds of medical necessity. He maintained that cannabis was the only effective form of relief for his symptoms and that his use of the drug should therefore be excused.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, relying on its earlier decision in Quayle. It held that allowing a defence of necessity in these circumstances would undermine the legislative scheme established by the 1971 Act, which was designed to control the possession and supply of controlled substances strictly and comprehensively. Admitting such a defence would be inconsistent with the statute’s purpose and effect, as Parliament had clearly intended to criminalise possession regardless of personal medical circumstances.

The defendant also argued that prosecuting him amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. He claimed that by refusing to permit the use of cannabis, the state was effectively subjecting him to degrading treatment by depriving him of the only effective means of managing his pain.

The court dismissed this claim, explaining that the state’s refusal to allow cannabis use did not alter or worsen his medical condition and therefore did not meet the threshold for Article 3. The court concluded by reaffirming that there was no legal basis for a medical necessity defence in relation to the possession of cannabis, and that such matters were for Parliament, not the courts, to regulate.