R v Quint [2023] NSWDC 190

R v Quint [2023] NSWDC 190

The accused did not discharge the evidential burden for necessity because, even taking his evidence at its highest, it did not disclose an imminent threat of death or serious injury and did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful cultivation of cannabis was necessary. He had time and lawful alternatives, including prescription medication, medical or psychiatric treatment, and applying for lawful medicinal cannabis access. His conduct was not reasonable or proportionate to the threatened harm and would amount to choosing which laws to obey.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Cultivate Prohibited Plant Contrary to S 23(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling After Close of the Defence Case on Whether the Defence of Necessity Should Be Left to the Jury
Outcome
The defence of necessity was not left to the jury. The trial continued and the accused was convicted of the count in the indictment and sentenced.
Legal Topics
['cultivate Prohibited Plant' 'cannabis Plants' 'defence of Necessity' 'evidential Burden' 'imminent Peril' 'reasonable Lawful Alternatives']
['criminal Law' 'drug Offences' 'evidence'] ['cultivate Prohibited Plant' 'cannabis Plants' 'defence of Necessity' 'evidential Burden' 'imminent Peril' 'reasonable Lawful Alternatives']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Cultivate Prohibited Plant Contrary to S 23(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling After Close of the Defence Case on Whether the Defence of Necessity Should Be Left to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused discharged the evidential burden for the defence of necessity.' 'Whether the evidence, taken at its highest for the accused, could lead a reasonable jury properly instructed to have a reasonable doubt that necessity had been negatived.' "Whether the accused's cultivation of cannabis was a reasonable and proportionate response to an imminent threat of death or serious injury, or whether lawful alternatives were available."]

Ratio Decidendi

The accused did not discharge the evidential burden for necessity because, even taking his evidence at its highest, it did not disclose an imminent threat of death or serious injury and did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful cultivation of cannabis was necessary. He had time and lawful alternatives, including prescription medication, medical or psychiatric treatment, and applying for lawful medicinal cannabis access. His conduct was not reasonable or proportionate to the threatened harm and would amount to choosing which laws to obey.

Court Disposition

The defence of necessity was not left to the jury. The trial continued and the accused was convicted of the count in the indictment and sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Defence of necessity not left to the jury']