Drug Dealing Case Law Flashcards
Saxton v Police - What was it about?
In Saxton v Police the defendant posted a parcel containing cannabis resin from London to an address in Dunedin. The parcel was intercepted by Customs, and on his return to New Zealand Saxton was charged with importing a Class B controlled drug. In his defence he argued that although he had exported the drugs from England, he had not imported the drugs into New Zealand, as he did not bring them in himself. The Court of Appeal held that “to import” includes “to bring in” but that the term also has a wider definition.
Saxton v Police - (To Import)
To import includes “to introduce or bring in from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country”.
R v Hancox - What was it ?
In R v Hancox two parcels containing MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets were mailed from overseas to a post office box in Auckland. The defendant was arrested when she went to uplift one of the parcels, claiming that she had simply been asked to clear the box and had intended to deliver the parcel to the addressee. The Court of Appeal held that delivery into the post office box was the final step in the transit process and that the importation had ended; the woman’s involvement after that point could therefore not have aided or assisted in the importation.
R v Hancox (Importing)
The element of importing exists from the time the goods enter New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination … ie when they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee”.
R v Strawbridge - What was it about?
In R v Strawbridge the defendant was convicted of cultivating a prohibited plant, claiming on appeal that she had not known the plants she had cultivated were cannabis. The Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial, holding that the offence is not absolute and that mens rea is an essential element.
R v Strawbridge - (Establishing knowledge)
It is not necessary for the Crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.
Police v Emerali - What was it about?
In Police v Emerali the defendant was charged following a search warrant at his address in which minute quantities of cannabis were found. The Court of Appeal held that the purpose of the statute is not to prohibit the existence of controlled drugs per se, but to prevent their illicit use, and it was therefore necessary for the drugs found to be of a useable quantity.
Police v Emerali - (Useable amount)
the serious offence of … possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.”
R v Rua - What was it about?
In R v Rua the defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine after Police located a clandestine laboratory (clan lab) at his address. The Court of Appeal reviewed section 6(1)(b) and held that it does not create two separate and distinct offences – the words “producing and manufacturing” are to be read as complementary terms
Also in R v Rua, methamphetamine in suspension in a two-layered liquid, although not capable of being used in that state, was held to have been manufactured
R v Rua - (Produce or manufacture)
The words “produce” or “manufacture” in s 6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.
R v During - (An offer)
An offer is an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by the statute.”
R v Brown - What was it about?
In R v Brown the defendant was charged with offering to supply tabs of LSD to an undercover police officer. On analysis the tabs he had represented as LSD were found to contain another substance which was not in fact a controlled drug.
In confirming Brown’s conviction the Court of Appeal held that the offence of offering to supply a controlled drug can arise in a variety of ways including where the defendant:
• offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
• offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
• offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
• offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug.
R v Brown - (offer to..)
the making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence.”
R v Forrest & Forrest - What was it about?
In R v Forrest & Forrest two men were charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl who had run away from Child Welfare custody. At trial the girl produced her birth certificate and gave evidence herself that she was the person named in the certificate. The men successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girl’s age.
R v Forrest & Forrest - (Proof of age)
“he best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.
