Clegg v WA [No 2]

[2017] WASCA 30

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict supported by the evidence
5. › Selling a prohibited drug
6. › Whether substance was a 'derivative' of a scheduled poison
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(c)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of legislative instrument
3. › Meaning of 'derivative' in chemistry context
4. › Technical terms in legislation
5. › Role of introductory text in legislative instrument
6. › Whether introduction is operative or analogous to preamble
7. › Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons, cl 1(2)(c)
8. › Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth), s 52D
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Prohibited drug
4. › Interaction of Commonwealth and State legislation
5. › Scheduling of substances
6. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
7. › Poisons Act 1964 (WA)
8. › Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Admissibility of expert evidence to establish technical meaning of statutory term
4. › Whether expert evidence of structural similarity sufficient to prove derivative relationship

Quick Take

The term 'derivative' in clause 1(2)(c) of the SUSMP bears its natural and ordinary meaning in a chemistry context and encompasses substances structurally related to a scheduled poison. Expert evidence of structural similarity alone may be sufficient to prove derivative status without requiring pharmacological or toxicological evidence, though the sufficiency of such evidence is fact-dependent. The introductory text of the SUSMP is not operative but forms part of the context for construing the operative provisions, and should not cut down the natural meaning of operative terms absent good reason.