R v Li [2017] NSWDC 86

R v Li [2017] NSWDC 86

The deeming provision under s 308.2(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not apply, as MDP2P cannot be classified as a 'derivative' of MDMA under Schedule 9, since derivation is not established, only structural similarity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Deeming provision does not apply. Crown must prove intention beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Topics
['deeming Provision' 'possession With Intent' 'controlled Drugs' "interpretation of 'derivative' Under Poisons Standard"]
['criminal Law'] ['deeming Provision' 'possession With Intent' 'controlled Drugs' "interpretation of 'derivative' Under Poisons Standard"]

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 / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Does the deeming provision in s 308.2(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code apply to MDP2P on the basis it is a 'derivative' of MDMA under the Poisons Standard?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The deeming provision under s 308.2(3) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not apply, as MDP2P cannot be classified as a 'derivative' of MDMA under Schedule 9, since derivation is not established, only structural similarity.

Court Disposition

Deeming provision does not apply. Crown must prove intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • []