LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN: On 8th March 1990 in the Crown Court at Ipswich before Mr Recorder Woodford the appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows: on count 1, being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent attempt at evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug, he was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment; on count 2, being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug, he was given 12 months' imprisonment concurrent. He was recommended for deportation at the end of his sentence.         He sought to appeal against conviction. The single judge refused him leave. But on 23rd April 1991 the full court presided over by the Lord Justice gave him leave in respect of one point taken on the first count.         The facts were these. on 15th November 1989 customs officers boarded a ship which was moored at Felixstowe Docks. They were posing as drug dealers. The appellant was a seaman on the particular ship. Obviously, the customs officers had information. They were hoping to contact a drug courier and try to deceive him into believing that they wanted to buy drugs.         In that capacity Mr Farrant and Mr Williams, the customs officers, went up the gangway and saw the appellant at the top of it. He took them to his cabin. Mr Williams asked him if he had anything and if he could see it. the appellant said he had two kilos which were hidden on deck. The appellant asked to see the money. Mr Williams said that it was in the car and he wanted to see the drugs first. The appellant, according to them, asked them if they were customs; they said they were not. They agreed to make the exchange on the ship at 1.30pm that day. They left the ship and returned at 2.20pm. Again they saw the appellant who took them to a cabin opposite his and asked them if they had the money.         Mr Farrant showed him the money in an envelope. The appellant left the cabin and returned after a few minutes. From the legs of his overalls he removed four packages. Mr Farrant cut the corner of one package. the customs officers could then see that it contained a brown powder. They said that the appellant remarked that it was very good stuff. According to Mr Williams, the powder smelt like heroin and he thought that that is what it was Thus, they arrested the appellant.         An interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter. She was born in Sri Lanka but was a Tamil. She said that none the less she was capable of speaking and understanding Singhalese, which was the appellant's language. She conducted the interview in Singhalese. There is no need to go into details of that issue; one of the major points that was taken before the Recorder was that the account of the interviews, there being two, should not be allowed to go to the jury because it was said that the interpreter did not really understand Singhalese well enough to conduct them. It was also said that the appellant was too upset during the interview for anything that he to be reliable. The Recorder ruled against those submissions and, in our judgement, he was entitled so to do.         There was also evidence from a Mr Cain, a forensic scientist, who examined the packages. The total weight he said was 2.02 kilos. The powder in fact turned out not to be heroin at all. It was phenobarbitone and methaqualone, both prohibited drugs but not valuable ones. We have been told that the value of them was minimal, whereas had the powder turned out to be heroin, as Mr Farrant assumed, it would have had a street value in this country of £190,000.         There was also evidence from Mr O'Neill, a forensic scientist, who said that the most common ingredients used to adulterate heroin sent from the Indian sub-continent were phenobabitone and methaqualone. The powder in the package looked like heroin.         The defendant gave evidence. He said he was a Sri Lankan national and spoke Singhalese. On 18th or 19th October 1989 he was working on his ship in Pakistan. He was intimidated there by a man called Sahib, who put a knife to his neck and showed him these parcels and told him that he was to take them and give them to a man called Tony who would pay US $4,000 for the parcels. He was then to pass the money on to Sahib and if he did not do what he was told Sahib would kill him. He said that Mr Williams and Mr Farrant had come to the ship and spoken to him but he could not understand what they said.         As to the interpreter, she had not spoken Singhalese well enough for him to understand. He was too upset during the interview to take anything in. He did not know what the contents of the parcels were. He was too scared to mention Sahib.         There had been a submission at the close of the prosecution case that there was no case to answer. But there were also submissions, as we have indicated, that the two interviews were inadmissible.         So far as the single judge was concerned, he appears to have concentrated upon what he thought the important points were being raised in the defence; namely, that the interview evidence should never have been admitted and that the defence of duress ought to have succeeded.         It was the full court that fastened upon the real point in the appeal, which is whether there ever was sufficient evidence to go to the jury that this man believed that the packages contained heroin. If he believed that they contained what in fact they turned out to contain he would be guilty of count 2, as the jury found, but he would not be guilty of count 1.         The prosecution case was that this man was merely a courier. But additionally the prosecution were saying that these not very valuable drugs that were in the packages were intended to dupe the buyer into believing that the drugs were actually heroin; in other words, the buyer was going to pay a large sum of money for what he believed to be heroin when in fact those who sent the drugs knew very well it was not heroin at all. But it was also the prosecution case that the defendant mistakenly believed that the parcel contained heroin; in other words, that he was duped too.         It seems to us that these were two horses not easily ridden together, especially as the prosecution resisted his defence of duress, which defence indeed the jury rejected as they were entitled to do. That meant that the appellant was a party to the plot to smuggle the drugs into this country. Why then should he not have been a party to that part of the plot which involved duping the buyer? Was that not at least a reasonable possibility? Put another way, it is submitted that there was no evidence of any third party having duped him.         What was there against that submission? When the package was opened (and there was nothing to indicate that it had been previously opened once sealed) the appellant said, "It is very good stuff". The expert evidence was that in colour and smell it was like heroin. But this man had no previous convictions and there was no evidence that he knew of the qualities of heroin. In any event, as it seems to us, this evidence was entirely consistent with him being in the plot to dupe the buyer.         Mr Akast for the respondent has pointed to these pieces of evidence which he says taken together go to show that prima facie this man believed that what he was dealing with was heroin. First of all the powder resembled heroin. Secondly, the parcels were packaged to indicate that they contained powder. Thirdly, he was coming from a part of the world where heroin is grown. Fourthly, he was entrusted with the goods. Fifthly, he was a seaman on a large ship. Sixthly, he was instructed to pass the goods to a man called Tony. Seventhly, he told the officers he knew the parcels weighed in all some two kilos. Eigthly, he wanted the transaction kept secret. Ninthly, he did not want customs involved. Tenthly, when the customs officer cut the package he made the remark "very good stuff". Eleventhly, and last, he said that he was to paid US$4,000.         We have of course considered all those points, not just separately but taken all together. We are bound to say that it seems to us that they point no more in the direction that he believed it was heroin than that he did not. Of course, it is possible that this man was gulled too, so that he would give a convincing performance to the buyer, but this, it seems to us, is pure speculation. We are persuaded that this was a case where the Recorder ought to have ruled that there was no case to go to the jury on count 1.         Accordingly, the conviction on count 1 must be quashed. To that extent the appeal is allowed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -