R v Bucic

(2016) 263 A Crim R 515; [2016] NSWCCA 297

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Manufacture of prohibited drug
4. › Knowingly taking part in manufacture
5. › Whether separating cocaine from impregnated paper constituted 'manufacture'
6. › Whether process of extraction constituted step in manufacture
7. › Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 3, 6, 24
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Definitions
3. › Use of 'includes' versus 'means'
4. › Whether 'includes' expands ordinary meaning of defined term
5. › Whether definition may be construed by reference to term defined
6. › Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 3
1. Criminal Law
2. › Crown appeal against directed verdict of acquittal
3. › Question of law alone
4. › New trial ordered
5. › Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 107
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Use of judicial precedent from other jurisdictions
3. › Different legislation with similar purpose
4. › Whether interstate decision on different statute persuasive
5. › Use of dictionaries in statutory interpretation

Quick Take

The process of extracting a prohibited drug from a medium in which it is impregnated (such as paper or fabric) constitutes 'manufacture' within the meaning of s 24 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), even though the drug remains chemically unchanged. The expansive definition in s 3 DMTA (using 'includes') extends the ordinary meaning of 'manufacture' to encompass the process of extraction, and the Victorian decision in Beqiri v R on the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) has no application to the NSW statute. The legal meaning of 'manufacture' in the DMTA includes 'working up material into a form for use'.