An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of possessing drugs for taking purposes had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that he maintained before the court that the inspection and the arrest proceedings were invalid but the court dismissed this defence. He also said that flagrancy did not exist in his case.

The court said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the court considered all aspects of the incident properly and concluded that the elements of the crime existed in the case. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the inspection and the arrest proceedings were valid because they were preceded by serious investigations. The court said that the appellant's defence was irrelevant in this regard.

The court dismissed the appeal.