Under s 300.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), an accused cannot 'deal with the substance' before the substance is in existence or in the accused's possession or disposition; the extended definition of 'import' does not capture pre-importation conduct that does not involve any dealing with the actual substance. Where the prosecution relies on alternative particulars each independently sufficient to establish the physical element of a drug importation offence, an extended unanimity direction is required. The question of relevance of telephone intercept evidence is for the judge, not the jury, and where the prosecution tenders such evidence as direct proof rather than discreditable conduct evidence, s 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) does not apply.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.