Crawford, A. v McKean, C.A. [1982] FCA 84

Crawford, A. v McKean, C.A. [1982] FCA 84

The Court held that for offences involving possession of cannabis for supply under s.4(3) of the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978, the available penalty is such that summary jurisdiction is available under s.477 of the Crimes Act, and s.478 does not preclude summary hearing; therefore, the Supreme Court Judge's grant of mandamus was correct.

Parties
Appellant: Allen Crawford; Respondent: Christopher Allan McKean
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Summary Jurisdiction, Controlled Substances, Possession for Supply, Statutory Construction
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Mandamus Summary Jurisdiction Controlled Substances Possession for Supply Statutory Construction

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allen Crawford

Appellant

Christopher Allan McKean

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offences under s.4(2) and s.4(3) of the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 may be heard and determined summarily in the Court of Petty Sessions
  2. 2 Interpretation of s.477 and s.478 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as applied to the ACT in relation to penalties for possession of cannabis for supply

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that for offences involving possession of cannabis for supply under s.4(3) of the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978, the available penalty is such that summary jurisdiction is available under s.477 of the Crimes Act, and s.478 does not preclude summary hearing; therefore, the Supreme Court Judge's grant of mandamus was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs