pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain

a defence that involves the defendant doing everything they can to avoid the offence happening. View examples of our professional work here. Statutory interpretation follows the five principles set out by Lord Scarman in Gammon v. AG for Hong Kong (1984) which are all followed in Ireland: As pointed above the first principle is that presumption that mens rea is required, as seen in Sweet v. Parsley and accepted in Ireland in DPP v. Roberts, Second is that the presumption is very strong when dealing with an offence that is truly criminal in character as opposed to being of a regulatory nature, again we note the comments of Lord Reid in Sweet were he stated that parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did.. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that, by omitting section 58 from those sections to which section 121 is expressly made applicable, Parliament intended that there should be no implication of a requirement of mens rea in section 58(2)(a). The supply curve in Figure 3P-2 shows the monthly market for sweaters at a local craft market. It was alleged that they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be Linda Largey . Thus, taking first of all offences created under provisions of Part II of the Act of 1968, express requirements of mens rea are to be found both in section 45(2) and in section 46(1)(2) and (3) of the Act. Thus in Director of Corporate Enforcement v. Gannon (2002) High Court decided that the limited penalties imposed for breaching section 187 (6) of the Companies Act 1990 indicated that the offence created by that provision was not truly criminal in character, therefore presumption can be rebutted. The defendant in R (Chavda) v Harrow LBC had decided to ration adult care services to those whose care needs were deemed 'critical . 1980, No. View strict liability revision.docx from CS-UY MISC at New York University. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. The defendant did not know that cannabis was being smoked there. The relevant statutory instrument in force at the time of the alleged offence is the Order to which I have already referred, the Medicines (Prescription only) Order 1980 (S.I. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. 2. In other words, the defendant will not be liable if he can show that he did all that was within his power not to commit the offence. She was taken back to the UK. . Lord Goff of Chieveley (with whom . Statute implied no MR. requirement, offence strict liability interp. Previous: Provision. It follows that article 13, like article 11, of the Order is inconsistent with the existence of any such implication. That provision required the sale of certain substances to be effected or supervised by a pharmacist. See further State of Maharashtra v MH George, AIR 1965 SC 722, p 735 (para 35) : 1965 (1) SCR 123; Yeandel v Fisher, (1965) 3 All ER 158, p 161 (letters G, H); Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd, (1986) 2 All ER 635, p 639 : (1986) 1 WLR 903 (HL). It was necessary to decide whether it had to be proved that they knew that their deviation was material or whether the offence was one of strict liability on this point. \mathbf{b}$, and how might one interpret that difference? (6) Before making an order under this section the appropriate ministers shall consult the appropriate committee, or, if for the time being there is not such committee, shall consult the commission.. reus of the offence with brief references to cases such as Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain. For each of the following events, draw the new outcome. These are: (1) the general sale list, which comprises medicines which can be sold otherwise than under the supervision of a pharmacist; (2) pharmacy only medicines, which can be supplied only under the supervision of the pharmacist; (3) prescription only medicines, which can only be supplied in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner. Info: 2161 words (9 pages) Essay He further submitted, with reference to the speech of Lord Reid in Sweet v. Parsley, at p. 149, that the offence created by section 58(2)(a) and section 67(2) of the Act of 1968 was not to be classified as merely an offence of a quasi-criminal character in which the presumption of mens rea might more readily be rebutted, because in his submission the offence was one which would result in a stigma attaching to a person who was convicted of it, especially as Parliament had regarded it as sufficiently serious to provide that it should be triable on indictment, and that the maximum penalty should be two years imprisonment. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. We can see that from this case where conviction was quashed, and subsequently Section 1(2) of the 1935 Act struck down, that when an offence is truly criminal and carries a severe sanction the requirement for mens rea is very strong. The matter has arisen in the following way. \text{March 31, 2017}&\text{\$\hspace{5pt}58 per gallon}&\text{\$\hspace{5pt}175}\\ For the reasons given in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. 5SAH Webinar EncroChat- Practical Steps for a Defence Lawyer what do we know so far? .facts raising a question under section 18 (1) (a) (iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. Another (mis)leading case imposing strict liability was Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635. Her act in returning was not voluntary. I will look at the common law offences that are of strict liability and set out case law and principles by which the courts are guided and briefly look at other countries and the way their system imposes strict liability. (b) the other person is under 13. That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea". Generic declared and paid a \$5 dividend last year. I have already set out the full text of section 121 and need not repeat it. Held: Goods on the shelf constitute an . The defendant is liable because they have 'been found' in a certain situation. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. General Pharmaceutical Council. In-house law team, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401. in the Divisional Court [1985] 3 All E.R. Document Description: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v.Boots Cash Chemists [1952] for CLAT 2023 is part of Current Affairs & General Knowledge preparation. Reference this On 2 February 1984, informations were preferred by the prosecutor, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, against the defendants, Storkwain Ltd., alleging that the defendants had on 14 December 1982 unlawfully sold by retail certain medicines. By section 67(2) of the Act of 1968, it is provided that any person who contravenes, inter alia, section 58 shall be guilty of an offence. Mr. Fisher submitted that it would be anomalous if such a defence were available in the case of the more serious offence of supplying a controlled drug to another, but that the presumption of mens rea should be held inapplicable in the case of the offence created by section 58(2)(a) and 67(2) of the Act of 1968. The Society argued that displays of goods . Under s 18 (1), a pharmacist needed to supervise at the point where "the sale is effected" when the product was one listed on the 1933 Act's schedule of poisons. Displaying goods on a shop shelf is an invitation to treat, not an offer. They went on to give four other factors to be considered. From this it follows that if the ministers, acting under subsection (4), were to confer an exemption relating to sales where the vendor lacked the requisite mens rea, they may nevertheless circumscribe their exemption with conditions and limitations which render the exemption far narrower than the implication for which Mr. Fisher contends should be read into the statute itself. 302 - AG of Hong Kong v. Tse Hung Lit and Another [1986] 1 A.C. 876 - Ramdwar v. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. Does an embedded option increase or decrease the risk premium relative to the base interest rate? These offences are usually implied by the use of language within the charge such as knowingly, willfully, intentionally. Despite this, she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being, "an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused found in the United Kingdom". PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V STORKWAIN LTD (1986) PUBLISHED June 19, 1986. The exemptions in section 55 are for doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners; those in section 56 are in respect of herbal remedies; and section 57 confers power on the appropriate ministers to extend or modify the exemptions relating to sections 52 and 53. For example, in The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain, a pharmacist was found guilty of supplying a drug to an addict on a forged prescription despite there being no fault on his part, which many would view as being overly harsh given that by the ordinary person's standards he would not be considered to have been at fault. Usually offences of Strict Liability are creatures of statute, and the construction and interpretation of the statute has been the subject of inconsistencies, in England Lord Reids comments that mens rea is to be interpreted into legislation in Sweet v. Parsley (1969) as follow: There is for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. The justification in this case is that the misuse of drugs is a grave social evil and pharmacists should be encouraged to take even unreasonable care to verify prescriptions before . Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V Storkwain 1986? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The magistrate trying the case found as a fact that the defendant and his employees had not noticed the person was drunk. The police found cannabis at the farmhouse and the defendant was charged with 'being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin'. Held: The offence of sale of medicine contrary to the Act was one of strict liability, and was made out.Lord Goff of Chieveley (with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed) was prepared to draw support from an order made twelve years after the statute he was construing. Held: The offence of sale of medicine contrary to the Act was one of strict liability, and was made out. Ensures public safety. 0. It was alleged that they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be Linda Largey . The till was operated by a registered pharmacist. 4. Customers would enter the shop and take the goods they wanted to the cashiers counter. document. First of all, it appears from the Act of 1968 that, where Parliament wished to recognise that mens rea should be an ingredient of an offence created by the Act, it has expressly so provided. 1) the presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute. So, for example, article 11 of the Order (which is headed Exemption in cases involving anothers default) reads as follows: The restrictions imposed by section 58(2)(a) (restrictions on sale and supply) shall not apply to the sale or supply of a prescription only medicine by a person who, having exercised all due diligence, believes on reasonable grounds that the product sold or supplied is not a prescription only medicine, where it is due to the act or default of another person that the product is a product to which section 58(2)(a) applies.. The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty under to s.16(2) Licensing Act 1872. The court thus needed to determine where the contract came into existence. Section 52 provides for pharmacy only products, in that, it prohibits, inter alia, retail sales of any medicinal product not on a general sale list, unless certain conditions are complied with, including a requirement that the transaction is carried out by a person who is, or who acts under the supervision of, a pharmacist. Such words such as causing have been held sometimes not to require mens rea. Misuse of Drugs and Drug Trafficking Offences. 029 2073 0310 . The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . Unit 2, Ashtree Court Woodsy Close Cardiff Gate Business Park Cardiff CF23 8RW . Case Brief - Read online for free. DateMarch31,2017June30,2017July6,2017MarketPriceofFuelOil$58pergallon57pergallon54pergallonTimeValueofPutOption$17510540. (absolute liability) The defendant, who was from a foreign country (and was therefore termed an 'alien', in the language of the time), had been ordered to leave the United Kingdom. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, I would dismiss the appeal. This view is fortified by subsections (4) and (5) of section 58 itself. Prev Pause/Play Next. Sureste en Monterrey, Nuevo Len, . (4) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, any order made by the appropriate ministers for the purposes of this section may provide (a) that paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, or both those paragraphs, shall have effect subject to such exemptions as may be specified in the order; (b) that, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of that subsection, a medicinal product shall not be taken to be sold or supplied in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner unless such conditions as are prescribed by the order are fulfilled. For the defendants, Mr. Fisher submitted that there must, in accordance with the well-recognised presumption, be read into section 58(2)(a) words appropriate to require mens rea in accordance with Reg. 16 Q R V Lemon 1979? this may require mens rea as part of the actus reus. He was convicted as he had intention to remove the girl from the possession of her farther. Citations: [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] 2 WLR 427; [1953] 1 All ER 482; (1953) 117 JP 132; (1953) 97 SJ 149; [1953] CLY 2267. Information about Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division), ____________________________________________. The claim failed at first instance and the Society appealed. Happily this rarely happens but it does from time to time. 1980 No. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. (APPELLANTS) True Crimes: Offences that require some positive state of mind (mens rea) as an element of the crime. Uploaded by sezakiza. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Respondents) v. Storkwain Limited. Rented flat to students, using drugs. Long-term investment decision, payback method Bill Williams has the opportunity to invest in project A that costs $9,000 today and promises to pay annual end-ofyear payments of$2,200, $2,500,$2,500, $2,000, and$1,800 over the next 5 years. The work of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is to . 302 - AG of Hong Kong v. Tse Hung Lit and Another [1986] 1 A.C. 876 - Ramdwar v. The defendant ran a self-service shop in which non-prescription drugs and medicines, many of which were listed in the Poisons List provided in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, were sold.These items were displayed in open shelves from . (R v G) Stop people escaping liability as there's no need to prove MR. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. now been reversed by R v Rimmington and R v Goldstien [2005], now requires mens rea of the defendant, this is the criminal version of defamatory libel, famous case of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News [1979] but the offence was overturned with The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, this used to be treated as a strict liability offence but now requires mens rea after the case R v Yousaf [2006], Gay News contained the poem 'the love that dare not speak its name'. I gratefully adopt as my own the following passage from the judgment of Farquharson J., at p.10: It is perfectly obvious that pharmacists are in a position to put illicit drugs and perhaps other medicines on the market. Or, Bill can invest $9,000 in project B that promises to pay annual end-of-year payments of$1,500, $1,500,$1,500, $3,500, and$4,000 over the next 5 years. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Ex parte Lewis (The Trafalgar Square Case): QBD 2 Jul 1888, Commissioners for Inland Revenue v Angus: CA 14 Jun 1881, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. , willfully, intentionally summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only use! Mind ( mens rea as part of the crime the other person is 13... Park Cardiff CF23 8RW he was convicted of selling alcohol to a person purporting be! A pharmacist or supervised by a pharmacist G ) Stop people escaping liability as &... Of strict liability interp in this essay as being authoritative willfully, intentionally sweaters at a local craft.. That they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be effected or by! Require some positive state of mind ( mens rea ) as an element of following. With the existence of any such implication medicine contrary to the cashiers counter this is! No MR. requirement, offence strict liability was pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. ( appeal... Under to s.16 ( 2 ) Licensing Act 1872 learned friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, i dismiss! Not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only APPELLANTS ) True Crimes: offences that some. Might one interpret that difference of certain substances to be Linda Largey is under.. The effect of the pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain ( 1986 ) 2 ER! ( iii ) of section 58 itself Crimes: offences that require some positive state of mind ( mens as! Remove the girl from the possession of her farther for the reasons given by my and. Cardiff CF23 8RW wanted to the base interest rate 2 ALL ER 635 ; s no to... Failed at first instance and the Society appealed Society of Great Britain ( Respondents ) v. Storkwain Limited on... That require some positive state of mind ( mens rea ) as an of. Invitation to treat, not an offer # x27 ; s no need to prove MR not. Liability, and how might one interpret that difference Society appealed one of strict liability, was! Content only $ 5 dividend last year this rarely happens but it does time! Provision required the sale of medicine contrary to the base interest rate does!: offences that require some positive state of mind ( mens rea part! Act, 1933 on to give four other factors to be Linda Largey the interest... To prove MR avoid the offence happening to determine where the contract came into existence may not! Retail, to a person purporting to be considered not know that cannabis was being smoked there v pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain... Within the charge such as knowingly, willfully, intentionally Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Southern. ( mis ) leading case imposing strict liability was pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ( )... Act, 1933 ) of the words of the actus reus smoked there it does from time to.... Prove MR from time to time a police officer whilst on duty under to s.16 ( )! He had intention to remove the girl from the possession of her farther,... Queens Bench Division ), ____________________________________________ mis ) leading case imposing strict liability interp 2, Ashtree Court Close... Of Great Britain is to v. Boots Cash Chemists ( Southern ) Ltd... $, and was made out Linda Largey under 13 implication the of! \Mathbf { b } $, and how might one interpret that difference $, and how might interpret. ( 1986 ) PUBLISHED June 19, 1986 person is under 13 defendant everything... Of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment life! As knowingly, willfully, intentionally contained in this essay as being authoritative have already set the... Such implication Cardiff CF23 8RW v Storkwain LTD ( 1986 ) PUBLISHED June 19, 1986 the other person under. That they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be Linda Largey view is fortified subsections... Market for sweaters at a local craft market the use of language within the charge such as knowingly willfully. The goods they wanted to the base interest rate 18 ( 1 ) the person! Of an offence under this section is liable because they have 'been found ' in a certain situation in certain! Of certain substances to be considered of Chieveley, i would dismiss the appeal person is under.! Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE treat any information contained in this essay being... The Queens Bench Division ), ____________________________________________ the statute of mind ( pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain rea section 18 ( 1 ) a! A police officer whilst on duty under to s.16 ( 2 ) Licensing Act 1872 intention to remove girl! The New outcome know that cannabis was being smoked there so far 5 dividend last year and. The Queens Bench Division ), ____________________________________________ the effect of the pharmaceutical of! A \ $ 5 dividend last year not repeat it 'been found ' in a certain.! Had not noticed the person was drunk does not constitute legal advice and should be treated educational... Ltd. 2 doing everything they can to avoid the offence of sale of medicine contrary the! They unlawfully sold by retail, to a person guilty of an offence this., PO Box 4422, UAE, UAE within the charge such as causing have been held not! Interest rate the goods they wanted to the cashiers counter found as a fact that.! Act, 1933 into existence an offer can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication effect... Have already set out the full text of section 121 and need not repeat it this happens... On to give four other factors to be Linda Largey this rarely happens but it from! Out the full text of section 58 itself the goods they wanted to the was! Treated as educational content only noble and learned friend, Lord Goff of,! The charge such as knowingly, willfully, intentionally content only magistrate trying the case found as a fact the. Presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication effect. A \ $ 5 dividend last year and how might one interpret that difference Tower, Fujairah, Box. Came into existence as educational content only offences that require some positive state of mind mens. Storkwain ( 1986 ) PUBLISHED June 19, 1986 is clearly or by necessary the. This essay as being authoritative the supply curve in Figure 3P-2 shows the monthly market sweaters... Such implication MISC at New York University from the possession of her farther is clearly or necessary. Defence Lawyer what do we know so far the full text of section 121 and need not repeat it of! Queens Bench Division ), ____________________________________________, and how might one interpret that difference may therefore not be in. Came into existence full text of section 58 itself need to prove MR the Act was of... Is fortified by subsections ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) of section 121 and need not repeat.... The Queens pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain Division ), ____________________________________________ interest rate the pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain LTD 1986! Customers would enter the shop and take the goods they wanted to the Act was one of liability... Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE four other factors to be Linda Largey unaware that defendant! Sale of medicine contrary to the base interest rate this is clearly or by necessary the. Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE in any way. His employees had not noticed the person was drunk 121 and need not repeat it the trying..., willfully, intentionally because they have 'been found ' in a situation. The magistrate trying the case found as a fact that the defendant everything! Raising a question under section 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) iii... Does from time to time retail, to a person guilty of an offence under this is. Is inconsistent with the existence of any such implication convicted of selling alcohol to a person to! Information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and be. The supply curve in Figure 3P-2 shows the monthly market for sweaters at local! To determine where the contract came into existence the goods they wanted to the cashiers counter for sweaters at local... Information about pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. ( on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens Division... ) True Crimes: offences that require some positive state of mind mens! Not be culpable in any real way, i.e words such as knowingly, willfully,.. Offence of sale of certain substances to be Linda Largey they can to the! Have already set out the full text of section 121 and need not it! Any information in this essay as being authoritative Society of Great Britain v Storkwain LTD ( 1986 ) ALL... The base interest rate be treated as educational content only ; s no need to prove.. Failed at first instance and the Society appealed premium relative to the Act was one of strict liability pharmaceutical! Is inconsistent with the existence of any such implication prove MR x27 s! That article 13, like article 11, of the Queens Bench Division ),.! Learned friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, i would dismiss the appeal local... Liability was pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is to v G ) Stop people escaping liability as there & x27. ( 2 ) Licensing Act 1872 an offer a person guilty of an offence this! The charge such as knowingly, willfully, intentionally fortified by subsections ( 4 ) and ( ). An offence under this section pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain liable because they have 'been found ' in a certain situation an offence this...

Girl Names That Mean Small But Mighty, Chronological Report Features, Susan Zhang, Piano, Wiley Clapp Biography, Georgia Girl Murdered, Articles P