Accused of Supplying Drugs Found in Your Home? What the Crown Must Prove When the Drugs Line Belongs to Your Partner

Drugs in the house, a partner running the line, and a woman charged for living there

The police came to the house. They found cannabis. They had been watching a drugs line that was supplying the local area, and they believed the line was being operated from our client’s home address. The person they suspected of running it was her partner, who lived with her.

Our client was charged with possession with intent to supply Class B drugs. The Crown’s case was that the drugs were in her home, the drugs line was connected to her address and she was therefore involved in the supply.

Our client said she knew nothing about the drugs. She denied any involvement in the supply. She had called the drugs line on four occasions, but calling a number is not the same as running the operation behind it.

If you are reading this because drugs have been found in your home and your partner or housemate is the one dealing them, one question is probably louder than all the others. Can they charge me for something my partner did? This guide answers that question. It uses our client’s case to explain what the Crown must prove in a possession with intent to supply case where the drugs belong to someone else, and what targeted representations to the Crown can achieve before the case ever reaches a courtroom.

Stuart Miller Solicitors acts for people accused of drug offences, including cases where the Crown charges a person based on their association with a partner or housemate who is the actual dealer. The Crown offered no evidence against our client, and all charges were dropped. This guide uses her case to explain the law and the process.

The Allegation

The Crown charged our client with possession with intent to supply a Class B drug, namely cannabis. The charge arose from a police operation targeting a drugs line that was suspected of supplying cannabis in the Islington and Camden area of North London.

The police attended our client’s home address and seized a quantity of cannabis. The prosecution alleged that our client’s partner, who resided with her at the address, was operating the drugs line. The Crown’s case was that our client was involved in the supply operation by virtue of her presence at the address and her connection to the line.

The record says our client had called the drugs line on four occasions. The prosecution treated those calls as evidence of her involvement in the supply operation.

Our client denied any knowledge of or involvement in the supply of cannabis. She maintained that the drugs and the drugs line were her partner’s operation, not hers. She accepted that she had called the number on four occasions but denied that those calls connected her to the supply of drugs.

The defence made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service, arguing that there was insufficient evidence linking our client to the drugs or the supply operation. The Crown reviewed its case and agreed to offer no evidence.

The record does not say how much cannabis was seized, where in the property it was found, whether it was in a shared space or a private room, what the four phone calls involved or what our client’s partner’s role was alleged to be in detail. It does not say whether the partner was also charged or what the outcome of his case was. We have added none of it.

The dispute the record identifies is about knowledge and involvement. Could the Crown prove that our client was personally involved in the supply of cannabis, or was she simply living at an address where her partner was running a drugs line?

Possession with intent to supply: the law in plain English

What the Crown must prove

Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply is an offence under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Crown must prove three things so that the jury is sure:

1. Possession: the defendant had the drug in their custody or under their control and knew they had it.
2. The substance is a controlled drug: cannabis is a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
3. Intent to supply: the defendant intended to pass the drug to another person. Supply includes distribution, not just sale.

All three elements must be proved. If the Crown cannot prove any one of them, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

Possession in a shared home

Possession can be actual, the drug is on the defendant’s person, or constructive, the drug is in a place the defendant controls and they know it is there.

In a shared home, constructive possession is not automatic. The Crown must prove that the defendant knew the drugs were in the property and had some degree of control over them. The fact that drugs are found in a home where the defendant lives is evidence the Crown may rely on, but it is not conclusive. The jury must consider:

• whether the drugs were in a shared space or a private room belonging to someone else;
• whether the defendant had access to the area where the drugs were found;
• whether there is evidence linking the defendant to the drugs beyond their presence in the home;
• whether someone else in the household is the more likely owner of the drugs; and
• whether there is an innocent explanation for the drugs being in the property.

The record says the drugs were found at our client’s home address and that her partner, who lived with her, was the person suspected of operating the drugs line. Those facts go directly to the question of whose drugs they were.

Association is not participation

Living with someone who deals drugs is not a criminal offence. The Crown must prove that the defendant was personally involved in the supply, that they handled the drugs, managed the line, arranged deliveries, stored the stock or played some other active role in the operation.

Association with a dealer, even a cohabiting partner, is not proof of involvement. The Crown cannot convict on the basis of guilt by association. The evidence must show what the defendant personally did and what they personally knew.

What phone calls to a drugs line can and cannot show

The Crown relied on the fact that our client had called the drugs line on four occasions. The prosecution treated those calls as evidence of her involvement in the supply operation.

But calling a phone number is not the same as operating the line behind it. A person may call a drugs line for many reasons, to speak to the person on the other end, to pass on a message, to ask a question unrelated to drugs or, indeed, to purchase drugs for personal use. None of those reasons amounts to possession with intent to supply.

The Crown would need to show that the calls were connected to the supply operation in a way that demonstrated our client’s active participation, for example, that she was taking orders, arranging deliveries or managing the line on behalf of her partner. The record says the Crown ultimately accepted that it could not prove that connection.

The Crown’s duty to review and the power of early representations

The Full Code Test

The Crown Prosecution Service operates under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires prosecutors to apply the Full Code Test before proceeding with a case. The test has two stages:

1. The evidential stage: is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? The prosecutor must consider whether the evidence is reliable, credible and admissible, and whether a jury properly directed would be more likely than not to convict.
2. The public interest stage: is a prosecution required in the public interest?

If the evidential stage is not met, the case must not proceed, regardless of the public interest. The Crown has a continuing duty to review the evidence throughout the proceedings and to discontinue the case if the evidential threshold is no longer met.

Making representations to the Crown

The defence is entitled to make written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service at any stage of the proceedings, inviting the prosecutor to review the evidence and to discontinue the case if the Full Code Test is not met.

Effective representations identify the specific gaps in the Crown’s evidence, explain why the evidence does not meet the evidential threshold and set out the defence case clearly and concisely. The representations should be supported by evidence where possible and should address each element of the offence the Crown must prove.

In this case, the defence made representations arguing that there was no evidence linking our client to the drugs or the supply operation. The Crown reviewed its case and agreed to offer no evidence. The charges were dropped before the case reached trial.

Why early resolution matters

A drug supply charge is a serious matter, even when the evidence is weak. The charge appears on the defendant’s record, may affect bail decisions, can disrupt employment and housing and causes significant stress and uncertainty for the defendant and their family.

Resolving the case before trial through representations to the Crown avoids the need for a lengthy and costly trial, spares the defendant the experience of giving evidence and allows the matter to be concluded quickly and cleanly. In this case, the early resolution meant our client did not have to face a trial for a charge that the Crown ultimately accepted it could not prove.

What was at stake

Possession with intent to supply a Class B drug carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Sentencing Council’s drug offences guideline looks at the defendant’s role, leading, significant or lesser, and the quantity and class of drugs involved.

Even a lesser role in the supply of cannabis can attract a custodial sentence, particularly where the operation involves a dedicated phone line and an established customer base. The record does not say what quantity of cannabis was seized or what sentence our client would have faced had she been convicted, and we do not speculate.

A conviction would also have triggered confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, potentially resulting in the seizure of assets. It would have meant a permanent criminal record for a drug trafficking offence, with lifelong consequences for employment, travel, housing and, for anyone without British citizenship, immigration status.

The Crown offered no evidence. Our client received no conviction, no sentence and no criminal record. The difference between a conviction and a discontinuance is the difference between a life derailed and a life preserved.

The wait, and what a pre-trial resolution means for a defendant

The record gives limited detail about the timeline, and we have not built one beyond what is stated. It confirms that the charges were dropped following representations to the Crown, before the case reached trial.

For a defendant facing a drug supply charge, the period between charge and resolution can be deeply unsettling. The charge hangs over every aspect of daily life, employment, relationships, housing and mental health. The uncertainty of not knowing whether the case will proceed to trial or be dropped can be as damaging as the charge itself.

In this case, the defence’s decision to make early and targeted representations to the Crown meant that the case was resolved without the need for a trial. The record does not say how long the process took from charge to discontinuance or what conditions, if any, were imposed on our client during that period. We have not guessed.

How the defence was built

The record describes the defence strategy in clear terms. We set out what it says and stop where it stops.

Identifying the gap between association and involvement

• The problem: the Crown charged our client with possession with intent to supply cannabis based on the presence of drugs at her home address and her connection to a partner who was suspected of operating a drugs line.
• The legal point: association with a drug dealer is not proof of involvement in the supply. The Crown must prove that the defendant personally possessed the drugs and intended to supply them (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.5(3)). Living at an address where drugs are present is not, by itself, sufficient.
• The action: the defence identified the gap in the Crown’s evidence and argued that there was no evidence linking our client to the drugs or the supply operation beyond her presence at the address.
• Why it mattered: the gap was fundamental. Without evidence of personal involvement, the Crown could not meet the evidential stage of the Full Code Test.

Challenging the significance of the phone calls

• The problem: the Crown relied on four phone calls our client had made to the drugs line as evidence of her involvement in the supply operation.
• The legal point: calling a phone number is not evidence of operating the line behind it. The Crown must prove that the calls were connected to the supply operation in a way that demonstrated active participation.
• The action: the defence argued that the four calls did not establish our client’s involvement in the supply and were consistent with innocent explanations.
• Why it mattered: the phone calls were the Crown’s primary evidence of our client’s connection to the drugs line. By neutralising that evidence, the defence removed the Crown’s strongest link between our client and the supply operation.

Making targeted representations to the Crown

• The problem: our client was facing a serious charge carrying a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment, despite the weakness of the evidence against her.
• The legal point: the Crown has a continuing duty to review its case under the Code for Crown Prosecutors and to discontinue proceedings where the evidential threshold is not met.
• The action: the defence made detailed representations to the Crown, setting out the lack of evidence linking our client to the drugs and arguing that the Full Code Test was not satisfied.
• Why it mattered: the Crown agreed. It offered no evidence, and all charges were dropped. The case was resolved without a trial.

A spokesman for Stuart Miller Solicitors said:

“Living with someone who deals drugs is not a crime. In this case, the Crown charged our client because drugs were found in her home and her partner was running a line. But when we made representations pointing out that there was no evidence linking her to the drugs or the supply, the Crown had no answer. The charges were dropped. That is what happens when the defence holds the prosecution to its burden of proof.”

We do not say the outcome was inevitable. The Crown reviewed its evidence and made its own decision. What the record shows is that the defence’s representations were the catalyst for that review.

The outcome, and what it did and did not resolve

The Crown offered no evidence on all charges. Our client was formally acquitted.

Precisely:

• All charges were dropped. The Crown offered no evidence, which means the prosecution formally withdrew its case. This is a complete acquittal.
• The outcome reflects the lack of evidence. The Crown accepted that it could not prove our client’s involvement in the supply of cannabis. The discontinuance is not a finding of innocence, it is a recognition that the evidential threshold was not met.
• The outcome does not affect the partner’s case. The record says nothing about the outcome of the partner’s case or whether he was charged separately. Our client’s acquittal is independent of any proceedings against him.
• No trial was necessary. The case was resolved through representations to the Crown, avoiding the need for a trial and the stress and uncertainty that a trial would have caused.

Some things to consider after a discontinuance:

• Ask your solicitor whether a defendant’s costs order is available if you funded your defence privately. Limits apply.
• Property and devices seized during the investigation should be returned where no longer required.
• Ask what data police retain from phone records, search records and any other material gathered during the investigation, and for how long.
• If the charge has affected your employment, housing or immigration status, consider whether any steps are needed to address those consequences.

Ask your solicitor to confirm in writing what was resolved and what, if anything, remains.

What to do now if you are accused of supplying drugs found in your shared home

What helps depends on the stage you are at.

Ask for a solicitor before answering any questions

Drug supply charges are serious, carrying a maximum of 14 years for Class B drugs and life for Class A. If the police attend your home and find drugs, ask for legal advice before answering questions. Police station advice is free. You can ask for the duty solicitor or name a firm. Do not assume that explaining your living arrangements will clear things up, anything you say is admissible in evidence.

Be clear about whose drugs they are

If you live with a partner, housemate or family member who is involved in drug dealing, tell your solicitor the truth about what you knew and what you did not know. The Crown must prove that you personally possessed the drugs and intended to supply them. If the drugs belong to someone else and you had no involvement in the supply, that is your defence.

Do not assume that phone records prove involvement

The Crown may rely on phone records, call data or message logs to argue that you were connected to a drugs line. But calling a number, receiving calls or being in a WhatsApp group is not proof of supply. The Crown must prove that your communications were connected to the supply operation in a way that demonstrates active participation. Tell your solicitor about every call, message and contact that the Crown may rely on.

Ask your solicitor about making representations to the Crown

If the evidence against you is weak, your solicitor can make written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service inviting the prosecutor to review the case and discontinue the proceedings. Early representations can resolve a case before it reaches trial, saving months of stress and uncertainty. In this case, the representations were decisive.