Regina v B D [2001] NSWCCA 184

Regina v B D [2001] NSWCCA 184

The words of s 6 and s 24 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 are unambiguous and do not extend to the acquisition or transport of chemicals or equipment, without more, even where intended for future manufacture of prohibited drugs. Such conduct, and the removal of Sudafed tablets from blister packs on the facts of this case, were preparatory to manufacture rather than steps in the process of manufacture. Judge Graham did not err in concluding that there was no case to answer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Question Submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions Pursuant to S 5 A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Determination by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After the District Court Entered a Verdict of Not Guilty at the Conclusion of the Crown Case
Outcome
Question answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
['taking Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'meaning of a Step in the Process of Manufacture' 'preparatory Acts' 'possession of Precursors' 'question of Law After Acquittal']
['criminal Law' 'drug Offences' 'criminal Procedure'] ['taking Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'meaning of a Step in the Process of Manufacture' 'preparatory Acts' 'possession of Precursors' 'question of Law After Acquittal']

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

Question Submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions Pursuant to S 5 A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Determination by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After the District Court Entered a Verdict of Not Guilty at the Conclusion of the Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether obtaining and transporting Sudafed, phosphorous powder, orthophosphoric acid and implements to be used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine could constitute taking a step in the process of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.' 'Whether removal of Sudafed tablets from blister packs could constitute taking a step in the process of manufacture of methylamphetamine.']

Ratio Decidendi

The words of s 6 and s 24 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 are unambiguous and do not extend to the acquisition or transport of chemicals or equipment, without more, even where intended for future manufacture of prohibited drugs. Such conduct, and the removal of Sudafed tablets from blister packs on the facts of this case, were preparatory to manufacture rather than steps in the process of manufacture. Judge Graham did not err in concluding that there was no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Question answered in the negative.

Orders

  • ['The question of law submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions was answered "no".']