Apostolides v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an application for special leave to appeal by Nicholas John Apostolides against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute concerned the interpretation of "occupied" within section 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, which deems a substance to be in a person's possession if it is found on land or premises occupied by them, unless they prove otherwise. This provision effectively reverses the burden of proof and can lead to conviction even without mens rea.

The central legal issues before the Court were the meaning of the word "occupied" in the context of section 5 of the Act, and whether a trial judge was required to define and explain this term to the jury. This was particularly pertinent given that the applicant's occupation of the premises was disputed, and proof of occupation was crucial for the deeming provision to operate. The applicant argued that without judicial guidance, the jury might have applied inconsistent interpretations of "occupied," potentially leading to an unfair trial.

The Court was informed that section 15 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 (Vic) deems sentences to be concurrent unless an order for cumulation is made, explaining why a specific sentence on count 5 was not addressed in the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision. The applicant's submissions focused on the interpretation of "occupied" and the necessity of a jury direction on this term, highlighting that if occupation was established, the deeming provision would operate, potentially negating the need for mens rea.