Leighton Arnott v Corey James Pike

Case [2018] NTLC 32

CITATION:Leighton Arnott V Corey James Pike [2018] NTLC032

PARTIES:Leighton Arnott

v

Corey James Pike

TITLE OF COURT:  Local Court

JURISDICTION:  Criminal

FILE NO(s):21826194

DELIVERED ON:  26 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:  Darwin

HEARING DATE(s):  26 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF:  Chief Judge Lowndes

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – SECTION 5D(1) OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT – MEANING OF “SUPPLY”

Misuse of Drugs Act ss 3, 5D(1) and 40(3)

Interpretation Act ss 62B(1), (2) and (3)

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 applied

Williams v Balcin [2012] NTSC 15 applied

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Complainant:  Mr I Rowbottam

Defendant:Ms Kepert

Solicitors:

Complainant:  DPP

Defendant:NTLAC

Judgment category classification:       A

Judgment ID number:  [2018] NTLC 032

Number of paragraphs:  44

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 21826194

BETWEEN:

Leighton Arnott

Complainant

AND:

Corey James Pike

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 26 November 2018)

CHIEF JUDGE LOWNDES

THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT

  1. On 5 November 2018 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to s 5A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, involving the supply of a dangerous drug (cannabis) less than a commercial quantity. On the same day the defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge contrary to s 5D(1) of the Act involving the supply of a dangerous drug (cannabis) less than a commercial quantity with the circumstance that the drug was supplied in an indigenous community.

  2. In relation to the not guilty plea a set of alleged facts was tendered by consent (Exhibit P1). The only issue in contention is whether the element of “supply in an indigenous community” has been established on the agreed facts according to law.

    CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE

  3. As the matter turns upon a proper construction of the offence creating provision, the starting point is Section 5D (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That section provides as follows:

    A person commits an offence if:

    a.the person intentionally supplies, or takes part in the supply of, a substance or thing to another person; and

    b.the substance or thing is a dangerous drug and the person is reckless in relation to that circumstance; and

    c.less than a commercial quantity of the dangerous drug is supplied; and

    d.the dangerous drug is a Schedule 2 drug; and

    e.the dangerous drug is supplied in an indigenous community.

  4. It is conceded by the defence that the agreed facts establish the first 4 elements of the offence as charged.

  5. As regards the first element of the offence, supply is broadly defined in s 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and means:

    a.give, distribute, sell, administer, transport or supply, whether or not for fee, reward or consideration or in expectation of fee, reward or consideration; or

    b.offer to do an act mentioned in (a) above;

    c.do, or offer to do, an act preparatory to, in furtherance of, or for the purpose of, an act mentioned in paragraph (a);

    and include barter and exchange.

  6. The agreed facts…

Continue reading Leighton Arnott v Corey James Pike

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Leighton Arnott v Corey James Pike [2018] NTLC 032
Case
[2018] NTLC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leighton Arnott v Corey James Pike, delivered by Dr John Lowndes, Chief Judge of the Local Court of the Northern Territory, involves a dispute concerning the interpretation of the term “supply” within the context of section 5D(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The defendant, Corey James Pike, was charged with supplying a dangerous drug in an indigenous community. The crux of the case is whether Pike's preparatory acts, which occurred outside the indigenous community of Millingimbi, can be considered as supplying a dangerous drug within that community under the statutory provisions.

The legal issue before the court was whether the preparatory acts of supply committed by Pike outside the physical boundaries of the indigenous community could be construed as supplying a dangerous drug within the community. The defence argued that the statutory definition of “supply” required the actual act of supplying to occur within the community, while the prosecution contended that preparatory acts done with the intention of supplying within the community could suffice. The court had to determine the correct interpretation of the statutory language and whether Pike’s actions met the legal criteria for supplying a dangerous drug within an indigenous community.

In resolving the issue, the court began with a textual analysis of section 5D(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, noting that the ordinary meaning of the term “supply” aligns with the definition provided in section 3 of the Act. The court found that the statutory definition encompasses acts preparatory to supplying, in furtherance of, or for the purpose of supplying, and that these acts need not occur within the physical boundaries of the community to be considered as supplying within the community. Given that Pike intended to supply cannabis within the indigenous community of Millingimbi, the court concluded that his preparatory acts outside the community could be seen as supplying within the community. Therefore, the court found Pike guilty of the offence.

In conclusion, the court’s ruling established that preparatory acts of supplying a dangerous drug, if done with the intention of supplying within an indigenous community, can constitute the offence under section 5D(1)(e) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, even if those acts occur outside the community. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory language and the understanding that preparatory acts can be considered part of the supply process if they are done in furtherance of supplying within the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Although it is not necessary to have recourse to it, the Second Reading Speech reveals that the ordinary meaning of the text of the section in no way leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable; and is entirely consistent with the above analysis. CONCLUSION I find the defendant guilty of the offence of supplying a dangerous drug in an indigenous community. In my opinion, s 5D(1) ( e) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, read in conjunction with the definition of “supply” in s 3 of the Act, criminalises preparatory acts of supply that are committed outside an indigenous community, provided there is sufficient evidence that those acts were done in furtherance of, or with the object of, supplying a dangerous drug in an indigenous community. In the present case the defendant committed a preparatory act outside the boundaries of an indigenous community with the intention of supplying a dangerous drug in the indigenous community of Millingimbi.Dated 26 November 2018………………………………..Dr John LowndesChief Judge of the Local Court of the Northern Territory

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In relation to the not guilty plea a set of alleged facts was tendered by consent (Exhibit P1). The only issue in contention is whether the element of “supply in an indigenous community” has been established on the agreed facts according to law. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE As the matter turns upon a proper construction of the offence creating provision, the starting point is Section 5D (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That section provides as follows:A person commits an offence if:a.the person intentionally supplies, or takes part in the supply of, a substance or thing to another person; andb.the substance or thing is a dangerous drug and the person is reckless in relation to that circumstance; andc.less than a commercial quantity of the dangerous drug is supplied; andd.the dangerous drug is a Schedule 2 drug; and e.the dangerous drug is supplied in an indigenous community. It is conceded by the defence that the agreed facts establish the first 4 elements of the offence as charged. As regards the first element of the offence, supply is broadly defined in s 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and means:a.give, distribute, sell, administer, transport or supply, whether or not for fee, reward or consideration or in expectation of fee, reward or consideration; orb.offer to do an act mentioned in (a) above;c.do, or offer to do, an act preparatory to, in furtherance of, or for the purpose of, an act mentioned in paragraph (a);and include barter and exchange. The agreed facts disclose that the defendant intended to convey the cannabis to the indigenous community of Millingimbi for the purpose of selling the cannabis to members of that community. During the course of undertaking that enterprise the defendant was apprehended approximately 120 kilometres from Maningrida- a place outside the indigenous community of Millingimbi. Whilst the defendant accepts on those facts that he intentionally supplied a dangerous drug to another person by reason of doing an act preparatory to, in furtherance of, or for the purpose of, an act mentioned in paragraph (a) of the definition of “supply”,[1] he denies that the dangerous drug was supplied in an indigenous community (s5D(1) (e)). It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the circumstance of supplying a dangerous drug in an indigenous community requires proof that one of the activities specified in the definition of “supply” occurred in an indigenous community - that is to say the activity must have occurred within the physical or cadastral boundaries of the community. It is submitted that as the activity in the present case – namely the doing of an act preparatory to, in furtherance of, or for the purpose of an act mentioned in paragraph (a) of the definition of supply – occurred beyond the boundaries of the community the defendant cannot be found to have supplied the cannabis in an indigenous community. As mentioned earlier, whether or not the defendant supplied the cannabis in an indigenous community turns upon a proper construction of s 5D(1) (e). Therefore, something needs to be said about the contemporary approach to statutory interpretation.