Page v May Summary | CaseChat AU

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: PAGE -v- MAY [2008] WASC 185

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 22 AUGUST 2008

DELIVERED : 22 AUGUST 2008

FILE NO/S: SJA 1056 of 2008

BETWEEN: KEITH MICHAEL PAGE
Appellant
AND
CLINTON PHILIP MAY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE C D ROBERTS
File No  :MI 9664 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences diazepam and turbutaline sulfate - Not scheduled drugs - Pleas of guilty - Convictions quashed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Fines remitted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Maughan
Respondent: Mr H D Leith

Solicitors:

Appellant: Andrew Maughan & Associates
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

McKECHNIE J: Following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of charges of possessing a prohibited drug in respect of a prominent Western Australian, police began an examination of their files going back a number of years. As a result, six matters have been identified where persons were convicted, following their pleas of guilty, of possession of a prohibited drug; namely diazepam. The appellant also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited drug; namely turbutaline sulfate.
Each has now sought an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal. I directed that the extensions of time, applications for leave to appeal and the appeals be heard together. In each case the respondent has filed submissions conceding the appeals. In each case the prohibited drug was said to be diazepam.
Diazepam is a benzodiazepine derivative and is widely prescribed. It is a drug capable of addiction and misuse. In order to be a prohibited drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) the drug must be listed in sch 1 of that Act or in the Poisons Act 1964 (WA), sch 8 and sch 9, or be the subject of an order under the Poisons Act as a specified drug. Diazepam is not listed in any of those schedules or in any order. Accordingly diazepam is not, in Western Australia, a prohibited drug. Turbutaline sulfate is a bronchodilator and does not appear in either schedule or order. Notwithstanding pleas of guilty, the convictions are not legally sustainable because no offence was committed by the appellant. The concession by the respondent is rightly made.
The orders will be that time within which to appeal is extended, leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed, the convictions quashed and the fines remitted.

In Page v May, the appellant, Page, appealed against his convictions and sentences for drug offences involving diazepam and turbutaline sulfate. These substances were not scheduled drugs at the time of the alleged offences. Page pleaded guilty to the charges in the Local Court and was sentenced. The District Court of New South Wales upheld the convictions but varied the sentences. Page then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The appeal raised issues concerning the legality of the convictions. It was argued that the substances in question were not scheduled drugs under the applicable legislation at the time, which meant the charges should not have stood. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in convicting Page on charges that did not align with the statutory definitions of scheduled drugs.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the convictions were indeed unlawful. The offences charged did not correspond with the legal definitions of drug offences as they pertained to substances that were not scheduled at the relevant time. Consequently, the convictions were quashed. Given that the convictions were quashed, the fines imposed by the District Court were also remitted.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the fines imposed by the District Court. The convictions were quashed due to the misapplication of the statutory definitions regarding scheduled drugs. The appellant's fines were remitted, and the convictions were set aside.

Page v May

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established