Deemster Dermot Main-Thompson has provided the island’s courts with a clearer definition of the word ’supply’ following a request from the Attorney General.

The AG, John Quinn QC, asked for the clarification following the acquittal by jury of John Paul Glover on February 11, 2019, of the charge ’of being concerned in the supply of a Class A drug (cocaine) to another’.

Under the law, set down in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1976 which says ’it is an offence - to be concerned in the supplying of a [controlled] drug to another’.

Deemster Main-Thompson considered submissions from Rachael Braidwood, who had represented the prosecution in Glover’s case.

Neither he nor his legal team chose to appear in this court.

Miss Braidwood argued that in the case of a supply charge, actual supplying of an illegal drug did not have to occur, rather intention or an agreement to supply an illegal drug was enough to commit an offence.

Using precedent cases in England and legal text books, Miss Braidwood highlighted the point made by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd that ’supply’ is a ’broad term’ and can refer to ’the entire process of supply’.

Deemster Main-Thompson noted in his judgement that it is accepted that ’supply can be a process and if it is interrupted then it does not annul that process’.

In his conclusion he said: ’I hold therefore that - for an accused to be concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs by a dealer, there does not have to be a specific identified sale in mind

’It is sufficient if, with the requisite knowledge and by means of sufficiently proximate acts, the accused is concerned in the general supplying of the dealer.’

Glover’s acquittal is not affected by Deemster Main-Thompson’s ruling.