R v Peart; R v Sorokin [2015] NSWCCA 321

R v Peart; R v Sorokin [2015] NSWCCA 321

Section 301.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), when read in context with s 301.9(1), operates distributively so that a listed controlled drug is not excluded from being a drug analogue of a listed border controlled drug. The trial judge’s construction would produce an absurd result contrary to legislative purpose. The Crown’s interpretation is correct.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Kylie Anne Peart; Respondent: Daniel Alexander Sorokin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against District Court Order Quashing Counts on Indictment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Drug Offences, Drug Analogues, Importation, Trafficking
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Drug Offences Drug Analogues Importation Trafficking

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Kylie Anne Peart

Respondent

Daniel Alexander Sorokin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against District Court Order Quashing Counts on Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 301.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) excludes MDMC, as a listed controlled drug, from being a drug analogue of Methcathinone for purposes of import/export offences
  2. 2 Proper construction of s 301.9(2): distributive vs non-distributive reading

Ratio Decidendi

Section 301.9(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), when read in context with s 301.9(1), operates distributively so that a listed controlled drug is not excluded from being a drug analogue of a listed border controlled drug. The trial judge’s construction would produce an absurd result contrary to legislative purpose. The Crown’s interpretation is correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Allow the appeal.
  • Set aside the order made by Toner SC DCJ on 9 September 2015 quashing counts 1 and 2 on the indictment presented against Kylie Anne Peart and Daniel Alexander Sorokin on 8 September 2015.