Case Law for Drugs Flashcards
Saxton v Police
Saxton v Police
To import includes “to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country”.
R v Hancox
R v Hancox
The element of importing exists from the time the goods leave their point of origin, and ends once they reach their target destination and/or made available to the receiver.
R v Strawbridge
R v Strawbridge
In the absence of evidence that the defendant had knowledge, then this knowledge will be presumed.
It is up to the defendant to prove if they honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent.
Police v Emirali
Police v Emirali
A drug must be of a useable and measurable amount for possession.
R v Rua
R v Rua
The words “produce” or “manufacture” broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process.
R v Maginnis
R v Maginnis
Supply involves more than the mere transfer of physical control, it includes enabling the person to use the drug.
R v During
R v During
An offer is an action by the person charged to another that they are ready on request to supply a controlled drug.
R v Brown
R v Brown
The defendant is guilty of supply when they offer to supply a drug that:
- He has on hand.
- That will be procured at some future date.
- That he mistakenly believes he can supply.
- Is offered deceitfully.
And it is with intent to be accepted as a genuine offer.
R v Forrest and Forrest
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence of age is a birth certificate accompanied by independent evidence from a person who can verify the person is the person in the birth certificate such as a birth parent.
R v Cox
R v Cox
Possession involves two elements.
The first is a physical element which is actual physical custody or control.
The second is a mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge of possession and an intention to be in possession.
R v McGinty
R v McGinty
A Judge is not required to refuse a warrant because the Police had not exhausted every conceivable alternative technique of investigation.
Disclosure of the identity of alleged informants was not required under the Act, however, the trial Judge was entitled to insist on disclosure if he saw fit.
