Green v WA [No 2]

[2014] WASCA 53

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. › Whether single charge for multiple packages of same drug gives rise to latent duplicity
5. › Whether quantity is an element of the offence
6. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), sch 1 cl 2(4), cl 8(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Indictment
3. › Duplicity
4. › Latent duplicity
5. › Whether prosecution case conducted on basis of multiple acts each capable of establishing offence
6. › Whether multiple packages of same drug at same time and place constitute one composite activity
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), sch 1 cl 8(2), s 132(5), (6)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Misdirection on onus of proof
5. › Whether single misdirection constitutes miscarriage of justice when summing up read as whole correctly directs jury
6. › Significance of failure of counsel to seek redirection
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 11(a)

Quick Take

A single charge of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) is not bad for latent duplicity merely because the drug was found in multiple packages and the accused admits possession of only some of them, since quantity is not an element of the offence. Clause 8(2) of sch 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) permits a single charge where multiple packages of the same drug are found at the same time. A single misdirection on the onus of proof will not constitute a miscarriage of justice where the summing up, read as a whole, correctly directs the jury on multiple occasions.