A (undercover cop) asked L for hash. L knew P who said he knew where he could buy some. L and P went to buy hash. Only L came back
Motive or desire is not relevant is determining the MR for the offence of aiding in trafficking – he just has to do something for the purpose of aiding the trafficking to be convicted (THE DISSENT IS LATER PICKED UP AS LAW NOT THIS)
2 interpretations of the case:
**He was trafficking
**He was acting as agent for purchaser
*Hodges rule - If there are 2 equally possible scenarios, one culpable one not, you must find in favour of the accused – one that doesn’t make him guilty.
*Motive is relevant
**To traffic does not include purchasing – so whether he was purchasing or not is important to determine whether he was aiding in trafficking.
P was trafficking or aiding in trafficking
Dissent is later picked up as law