Two men jailed for possession of caffeine and tylenol

[Mark R]

Two men have been jailed in a landmark drugs case after only being caught with caffeine and paracetamol.
Anthony Woodford, 23, and David Lewinson, 44, were jailed for eight years today in a landmark ruling after Lewinson was arrested at Dover docks in Kent

He was found with 330lb (150kg) of the crushed substances, which investigators are convinced was intended to cut heroin, giving the pair a stash with a street value of more than £5million.

Daily Fail

This is a pretty scary verdict. There was no direct evidence that either of the men ever had possession of any illegal substance.

The two substances found were both legal.

I suppose it's like being in possession of large amounts of cash. You are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'll need more information here.

Detective Sergeant Mat Scott, from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, said after the sentencing: 'We believe this to be the first time in the UK that the prosecution were able to prove, beyond doubt, that the huge quantity of paracetamol and caffeine were intended to be used to cut with heroin.

The jury obviously believes that this is true, beyond reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the article has no details and now that I think of it, no pertinent information WRT to the OP's concern at all.

 

[nehalem256]

Feel free to provide a reasonable explanation for why someone might be transporting 330 pounds of crushed caffeine and paracetamol across international borders.

Maybe he just had a REALLY bad headache

 

[Howard]

Feel free to provide a reasonable explanation for why someone might be transporting 330 pounds of crushed caffeine and paracetamol across international borders.

Maybe he just had a REALLY bad headache

Who cares? What if he were caught with 50,000 sledgehammers or really sharp kitchen knives?

 

[disappoint]

Feel free to provide a reasonable explanation for why someone might be transporting 330 pounds of crushed caffeine and paracetamol across international borders.

Maybe he just had a REALLY bad headache

That will give one a headache.

 

[nehalem256]

Who cares? What if he were caught with 50,000 sledgehammers or really sharp kitchen knives?

So you don't think if someone was caught carrying 50,000 knives across an international border questions might be asked?

The most obvious defense to the case is for the defense to explain to jury why their client was carrying their own body weight in crushed caffeine and pain killers across an international border.

Apparently they were not able to come up with an explanation that seemed even remotely reasonable. Probably because there is no such explanation.

 

[irishScott]

So you don't think if someone was caught carrying 50,000 knives across an international border questions might be asked?

The most obvious defense to the case is for the defense to explain to jury why their client was carrying their own body weight in crushed caffeine and pain killers across an international border.

Apparently they were not able to come up with an explanation that seemed even remotely reasonable. Probably because there is no such explanation.

It's still technically circumstantial. I circumstantial evidence is allowed to convict, that's a VERY dangerous line to walk. In some cases it would work, in many it would be disastrous. The nature of legal precedent is that it doesn't confine itself to specific cases.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So you don't think if someone was caught carrying 50,000 knives across an international border questions might be asked?

The most obvious defense to the case is for the defense to explain to jury why their client was carrying their own body weight in crushed caffeine and pain killers across an international border.

Apparently they were not able to come up with an explanation that seemed even remotely reasonable. Probably because there is no such explanation.

Isn't there a specific charge for weapon smuggling?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Remember, its not what you did, its all the things you could have done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vert--photographing-children-public-park.html

 

[nehalem256]

Isn't there a specific charge for weapon smuggling?

Quite likely.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Feel free to provide a reasonable explanation for why someone might be transporting 330 pounds of crushed caffeine and paracetamol across international borders.

Maybe he just had a REALLY bad headache

Why should anyone have to provide an explanation for transporting caffeine and paracetamol? Who's the victim?

 

[infoiltrator]

As much a warning to trafficers as "justice."
"For the encouragement of others.."
Makes sense to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why should anyone have to provide an explanation for transporting caffeine and paracetamol? Who's the victim?

If that is pure it's enough to poison a regional water supply if you do it at the filters.

If not it's still a substance that you need permits to import to the UK (and to the US) in higher quantities.

 

[Juror No. 8]

If that is pure it's enough to poison a regional water supply if you do it at the filters.

So what? There are dozens upon dozens of substances sold over the counter that can be used to poison a water supply.

Should we criminalize the transport of such substances based on nothing more than the fear that they could be used to poison a water supply?

If not it's still a substance that you need permits to import to the UK (and to the US) in higher quantities.

Why should anyone have to ask the government for permission to transport caffeine? Who's victimized by the transport of caffeine?

No victim, no crime.

 

[nehalem256]

So what? There are dozens upon dozens of substances sold over the counter that can be used to poison a water supply.

Should we criminalize the transport of such substances based on nothing more than the fear that they could be used to poison a water supply?

Why should anyone have to ask the government for permission to transport caffeine? Who's victimized by the transport of caffeine?

No victim, no crime.

What possible legitimate reason is there for having your own body weight worth of caffeine?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So what? There are dozens upon dozens of substances sold over the counter that can be used to poison a water supply.

Should we criminalize the transport of such substances based on nothing more than the fear that they could be used to poison a water supply?



Why should anyone have to ask the government for permission to transport caffeine? Who's victimized by the transport of caffeine?

No victim, no crime.

My apologies for feeding this troll.

It won't happen again.

 

[Juror No. 8]

What possible legitimate reason is there for having your own body weight worth of caffeine?

Why does a person need a reason to have a large quantify of something? Should we extend this type of thinking to money, land, food, ammo, animals, cars, artwork, and other items?

 

[Juror No. 8]

My apologies for feeding this troll.

It won't happen again.

LOL. I guess having your weak-sauce argument destroyed in a single post now equates to being "trolled".

 

[nehalem256]

Why does a person need a reason to have a large quantify of something? Should we extend this type of thinking to money, land, food, ammo, animals, cars, artwork, and other items?

So you think that if someone tried crossing the border with say a suitcase containing a $1,000,000 in sequential $100 bills serious questions would not be asked?

 

[Juror No. 8]

So you think that if someone tried crossing the border with say a suitcase containing a $1,000,000 in sequential $100 bills serious questions would not be asked?

Of course questions would be asked, because we live in a tyrannical police state. That's not the point. The point is, should questions be asked? Should it be considered a criminal offense to have too much money in your possession? Should it be considered a criminal offense to have too much caffeine in your possession? If so, who's the victim? Who's victimized by someone else having money or caffeine in their possession?

 

[nehalem256]

Of course questions would be asked, because we live in a tyrannical police state. That's not the point. The point is, should questions be asked? Should it be considered a criminal offense to have too much money in your possession? Should it be considered a criminal offense to have too much caffeine in your possession? If so, who's the victim? Who's victimized by someone else having money or caffeine in their possession?

Of course questions should be asked about things crossing international borders.

The guy had 80kg worth of caffeine (assuming half of the stuff was caffeine). That would be the equivalent of 400,000 200mg caffeine pills.

Even assuming he took 10 a day he has a 100 year supply.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Of course questions should be asked about things crossing international borders.

So you figure money and caffeine is a threat to national security or something?

The guy had 80kg worth of caffeine (assuming half of the stuff was caffeine). That would be the equivalent of 400,000 200mg caffeine pills.

Even assuming he took 10 a day he has a 100 year supply.

So what? Who's the victim? How are you victimized by a guy having a lifetime supply of caffeine or a suitcase full of money?

 

[nehalem256]

So you figure money and caffeine is a threat to national security or something?



So what? Who's the victim? How are you victimized by a guy having a lifetime supply of caffeine or a suitcase full of money?

How am I victimized by a guy having a bloody knife in his closet? But such a thing is highly suggestive of illicit activity.

Just like carrying a suitcase of money across a border.

Just like carrying an insane amount of an otherwise OTC drug across a border.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why would anyone have that much crushed caffeine and paracetamol in their possession?

 

[MovingTarget]

Eh, the Daily Mail is pretty light on details there. If it is as simple as it sounds (unlikely) then I also disagree with the verdict here. It shouldn't matter what the intent of possession of a legal substance/material/etc is. That isn't evidence of a crime, especially by itself. This sets a dangerous precedent.