Maroney v The Queen

The case of *Maroney v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the appellant, an inmate of a correctional facility, who had been convicted of unlawfully supplying heroin to himself within the institution. The appellant had arranged for a person outside the facility to bring the drug in for his use. The prosecution relied on section 7 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) to deem the appellant guilty of the substantive offence of supply, arguing he had counselled or procured the supply.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant could be criminally liable for the offence of supplying a dangerous drug to another, as defined by section 6 of the *Drugs Misuse Act 1986* (Qld), when he was both the intended recipient and the instigator of the supply. This required the Court to consider the interaction between the substantive offence provisions of the *Drugs Misuse Act* and the general provisions for secondary liability under section 7 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld), particularly concerning the concept of counselling or procuring an offence.

A majority of the High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the *Drugs Misuse Act* defined "supply" in a way that made it impossible for the appellant to be both the supplier and the person to whom the drug was supplied. They held that section 7 of the *Criminal Code*, which extends criminal liability to those who counsel or procure an offence, could not overcome this statutory impossibility. The Court emphasised that the structure and policy of the *Drugs Misuse Act* differentiated between supply and possession offences, and that applying section 7 in this context would lead to an "odd result" contrary to fundamental postulates of the offence and established principles of statutory interpretation regarding the interaction of substantive and secondary liability provisions. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a verdict of acquittal was entered.