I've just pinged an e-mail to my mother's friend who no doubt will enlighten us.In the mean time, I've been reviewing UK law on this matter, a couple of useful links, firstly Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on Possession of controlled substances as laid out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drug_offences/index.html#a26As you can see the burden of proof must be both that the accused has :- Actual physical possession - Knowledge of an illegal substance.The CPS guidelines even cite a case R v Warner (1969) which established on appeal that a person cannot be in possession of something of which he is completely unaware. In this case Warner was pulled over by two Police Officers who found two packages, one of which contained scent and the other amphetamines. Warner tried to claim he believed both packages contained scent when he took possession of them. The Jury was less than convinced and convicted him after deliberating for less than twenty minutes. On appeal, the judgment was reaffirmed by Lord Pearce. (Source: http://bit.ly/IHLGUL)The above link is an extract from Crime Line - a periodical for criminal defence Solicitors and anyone interested in Criminal Law. The text is a bit involved, so I will just cite the relevant part here:QuoteThere is a defence under section 28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1968. If the defendantcan show that, they neither knew nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that thesubstance in question was a controlled drug.There is an evidential burden on the defendant to show that, they neither knew norsuspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance in question was a controlleddrug. It is then for the prosecution to prove on all of the evidence the guilt of theaccused.As you can see, if a defence were to be mounted on this basis, the burden of proof would be on the Defendant to show that if drugs were sent to their house, they had no knowledge of its contents. Lord Pearce however says that since it is possession of a drug that is illegal, this would not be automatic grounds for acquittal:QuoteThe Act forbids possession of these drugs.Whether he possesses them with an innocent or guilty mind or for a laudable orimproper purpose is immaterial since he is not allowed to possess them. If hepossessed them he is guilty. If a man has physical control or possession of a thing thatis sufficient possession under the Act provided that he knows that he has the thing.But you do not (within the meaning of the Act) possess things of whose existence youare unaware. The prosecution have here proved that he possessed the parcel, but havethey proved that he possessed its contents also? There is a very strong inference of factin any normal case that a man who possesses a parcel also possesses its contents, aninference on which a jury would in a normal case be justified in finding possession. Aman who accepts possession of a parcel normally accepts possession of the contents.But that inference can be disproved or shaken by evidence that, although a man wasin possession of a parcel, he was completely mistaken as to its contents and wouldnot have accepted possession had he known what kind of thing the contents were. Amistake as to the qualities of the contents, however, does not negative possession.On the bright side the Police/Customs would have to be aware of the contents of the package too in order for them to be able to attempt to prosecute. The Act also states you must be in actual physical possession of the goods therefore you'd have to accept the package into your home or collect them from the post office depot yourself in order for them to prove both both possession and control.Naturally under law using the address of a third party would also not be a basis for a defence if you're caught but this is much less likely to happen in the first place if you don't use your own address.V.