Chick v The Queen

[2000] WASCA 231

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
4. › Meaning of 'supply'
5. › Whether mere holding of drugs for return to owner constitutes supply
6. › Manisco defence
7. › Whether direction to jury required
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 3, 6(1)(a), 11
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
4. › Deeming provision
5. › Presumption of intent from quantity
6. › Rebuttal on balance of probabilities
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 11
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Retrospective application of statutory amendment
4. › Whether amended definition of 'supply' applied to offences committed before amendment
5. › Whether misdirection produced miscarriage of justice
6. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 3
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Judicial discretion
5. › Totality principle
6. › Multiple drug offences involving range of drugs
7. › Whether aggregate sentence of 11 years manifestly excessive
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1), 7(1)

Quick Take

The Manisco defence (that mere holding of drugs for return to their owner does not constitute 'supply') requires an evidentiary foundation showing the accused was holding drugs received from their owner with a view to returning them to that same person; a general claim of holding drugs under duress or for unknown persons is insufficient. For offences committed before March 1998, the amended definition of 'supply' in s 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) does not apply. An aggregate sentence of 11 years for dealing in a range of drugs including methylamphetamine (287.75g) and LSD (3.06g) is at the top of the range but not manifestly excessive.