Signing for a decoy drugs parcel counts as possession

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided by Mr Justice Neville Camilleri, decided The Police vs G.J. on 8 July 2026 on cross-appeals by the Attorney General and the accused. The Court of Magistrates had convicted the accused of importing cannabis grass received through a controlled delivery but acquitted him of possession in circumstances denoting that it was not for his personal use.

The appeal court found him guilty of possession as well, rejected each of his four grounds, and raised the sentence from five years and €7,000 to five years and six months and €8,000.

The facts

On 10 and 11 March 2025 customs officers intercepted two packages from Thailand addressed to two different names at the same flat in Sliema. The first held four sealed packets of about 500 grams of cannabis grass each; the second also held suspect substances. A magisterial inquiry was opened and on 12 March the inquiring magistrate, Magistrate Joseph Mifsud, authorised the police to replace the drugs with decoys and carry out a controlled delivery.

A police sergeant posing as a Maltapost delivery man attempted delivery on 15 March, and Maltapost reported that someone was phoning to argue about the delay. On 17 March the sergeant drove to the flat and found the accused sitting on the step outside. The accused approached him, said he was waiting for two parcels, said he lived there, and signed for both although neither was addressed to him and he did not live there.

He was arrested. On 7 May 2026 the Court of Magistrates found him guilty of importation under Chapter 101, acquitted him of conspiracy and of aggravated possession, and imposed five years' imprisonment, a €7,000 fine, €5,105.15 in expert costs under article 533 and forfeiture of his property under article 22(3A) of Chapter 101.

What the court held

The court first set out its role. Citing the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment of 2 March 2021, it is a court of revision, not retrial: it asks whether the evidence and arguments before the first court allowed it to reach the conclusion it did.

On the Attorney General's appeal, the court adopted the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment of 5 June 2026, a case on the same pattern. Possession "is not limited to physical custody but also encompasses constructive possession, namely where the prohibited substance falls within the accused's sphere of control and dominion".

That the drugs were removed and replaced with dummy packages before delivery does not alter the position where the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the drugs and intended to control them on receipt. His acceptance of the parcels during the authorised delivery showed knowledge, intention and ability to control the cannabis, so the acquittal on the third charge was wrong.

The accused's first ground, that two testimonies had not been transcribed and the judgment was therefore null, failed on the record: both depositions had been transcribed and signed by the magistrate before judgment. His second ground was that the controlled delivery was flawed and he was tricked.

The court set out article 30B of Chapter 101, which makes a controlled delivery lawful with the consent of the Attorney General or a magistrate and expressly allows the consignment to be "removed or replaced in whole or in part". The written request and the magistrate's authorisation were in the acts.

Following the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment of 30 October 2024, which adopted the House of Lords' test (25 October 2001) of whether the police did no more than present an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime, the court found neither element of entrapment: no state instigation and no absence of predisposition. The accused approached the officer and signed without coercion or inducement.

His account that he was awaiting an envelope from his mother collapsed on the dates: her envelope was posted from the United Kingdom on 11 March, while the parcels had come from Thailand and had already arrived on 10 and 11 March.

The third ground argued that acquittal on possession was inconsistent with conviction for importation. The court answered with the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Superior Jurisdiction, of 22 January 2025: importation and possession are distinct and autonomous offences, not alternatives, so a conviction on one neither requires nor excludes a conviction on the other.

The fourth ground, on sentence, was measured against the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment of 20 December 2022: the punishment was within the parameters of the law and neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Because the Attorney General's ground succeeded and he had asked for it, the court found the accused guilty of the third charge under article 22(2)(b)(i) of Chapter 101 and increased the sentence, confirming the rest of the judgment.

Why it matters

A controlled delivery that ends in a signature now founds two convictions, importation and constructive possession, and the decoy substitution is no defence to either. Defence counsel should test the article 30B paperwork, since a documented request and authorisation closed the entrapment argument here, and should expect a "waiting for another parcel" account to be checked against postmarks and dates. Prosecutors should charge both offences and, on an acquittal of one, appeal it.

Where it sits

The case applies article 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 101, on possession, article 22(2)(b)(i) on possession not for personal use, and article 30B on controlled deliveries. The doctrine of constructive possession, knowledge plus the intent and ability to control, comes from the Court of Criminal Appeal (5 June 2026). The entrapment test is that of the Court of Criminal Appeal (30 October 2024), drawing on the House of Lords (25 October 2001).

The autonomy of importation and possession follows the Court of Criminal Appeal, Superior Jurisdiction (22 January 2025). The standard of review on sentence comes from the Court of Criminal Appeal (20 December 2022), and the revision role of the court from the Court of Criminal Appeal (2 March 2021).

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior), 240/2025/1, 8 July 2026, 240/2025/1.