Sgarlata v WA

(2015) 49 WAR 176; [2015] WASCA 215

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 of prohibited drug
4. › Knowledge component
5. › Whether prosecution required to prove accused knew drug was prohibited as a matter of law
6. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 22, s 24
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Supply of prohibited drug
4. › Knowledge component
5. › Whether prosecution required to prove accused knew drug was prohibited as a matter of law
6. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(c)
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 22
1. Criminal Law
2. › Criminal responsibility
3. › Ignorance of law
4. › Whether ignorance of prohibited status of drug affords excuse
5. › Criminal Code (WA), s 22
6. › Distinction between mistake of fact and mistake of law
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 24
1. Criminal Law
2. › Referral of question of law
3. › Referral by District Court judge to Court of Appeal
4. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 98(2)(d)
5. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 46

Quick Take

For offences of possessing or supplying a prohibited drug under s 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), the prosecution need not prove the accused knew the drug was prohibited as a matter of law. The knowledge component requires proof only that the accused knew or believed the substance was factually 'a drug' within the ordinary meaning of that term. An accused's honest belief that the drug was legal to possess or sell is not a defence, by operation of s 22 of the Criminal Code (WA). Whether knowledge is an element of a supply offence under s 6(1)(c) at all was left open.