Murphy v Police

The Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal by the appellant against convictions for uttering forged prescriptions, contrary to section 30(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The prosecution alleged that the appellant presented two forged prescriptions, one for Tramadol Hydrochloride and another for Zolpidem Tartrate, to a pharmacy assistant with the intent to obtain prescription drugs. The appellant admitted to being present at the pharmacy and leaving abruptly when questioned, but denied presenting the forged prescriptions, claiming he was waiting for a prescription for his own blood pressure medication. It was common ground that the two prescriptions were forgeries and were presented to the pharmacy assistant, but the central dispute was the identity of the person who uttered them.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate erred in admitting identification evidence and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who uttered the forged prescriptions. The appellant also raised grounds concerning the adequacy of warnings regarding identification evidence and the improper admission or rejection of evidence.

The Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the case was analogous to *Robey v Police*, where the reasoning of Cox J was considered apposite. The Court was satisfied that the Magistrate was entitled to find the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the advantages she had in assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. The Court concluded that none of the grounds of appeal had been made out and dismissed the appeal.