## Facts

- Multiple appellants faced charges for drug offences related to the possession and cultivation of cannabis.
- Each appellant suffered from serious medical conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and phantom limb pain, for which standard treatments were ineffective.
- The appellants claimed that cannabis provided substantial pain relief unavailable through other legal means.
- They relied on the defence of necessity, arguing their illegal actions were justified to relieve ongoing pain under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
- The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether their medical circumstances allowed for the necessity defence in law.

## Issues

1. Whether the defence of necessity could be invoked to justify cannabis offences committed to relieve chronic medical symptoms.
2. Whether the requirement of immediacy was satisfied by the appellants’ suffering.
3. Whether growing or possessing cannabis met the proportionality and absence of legal alternatives requirements of the necessity defence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ defence of necessity.
- The Court held that the immediacy requirement was not satisfied, as the appellants’ actions were directed at alleviating chronic pain rather than preventing imminent harm.
- The illegality of cultivating and possessing cannabis could not be justified on the grounds of ongoing suffering.
- The Court ruled that the proportionality requirement was not met; illegal drug use was not a proportionate response given the availability of alternative treatments, even if less effective.
- The presence of legal, albeit imperfect, alternatives further undermined the appellants’ argument.
- The precedent set effectively precluded using necessity as a defence in cases of self-medication with cannabis for chronic pain.

## Legal Principles

- The necessity defence requires a direct and immediate threat of harm to justify the commission of a criminal offence.
- There must be proportionality between the harm avoided and the legal wrong committed.
- The availability of any reasonable legal alternative defeats the necessity defence.
- Chronic and ongoing conditions, as distinct from immediate threats, do not meet the strict criteria for the defence of necessity in UK criminal law.
- The judgment established that medical necessity does not exempt individuals from liability for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Quayle established a restrictive interpretation of the necessity defence in relation to drug offences, holding that medical need, chronic pain, or inadequate legal treatments do not justify possession or cultivation of cannabis. The decision remains a central authority limiting the defence of necessity in drug-related cases involving medicinal self-use.


R v Quayle [2005] EWCA Crim 1415