Pinkstone v The Queen

This case concerned an appeal by Anthony Pinkstone against his conviction in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for supplying a prohibited drug. The appellant had sent two boxes containing drugs via air courier from Sydney to Perth. Upon arrival in Perth, the boxes were intercepted by police. One box, addressed to "One on One Security" for the attention of Mr John White, was collected by Mr Wayne Yanko, who signed for it as "John White". The other box, addressed to "Innaloo Plasterers and Security" for the attention of Mr Michael Brazier, was not collected by the intended recipient. The Supreme Court had been exercising federal jurisdiction, and the offence was alleged to have occurred in a Commonwealth place.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to consider whether the appellant's actions constituted a "supply" of a prohibited drug under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (WA), particularly in circumstances where the intended recipient did not personally receive the drugs, but rather a police agent acting under the appellant's implied authority did. Secondly, the Court had to examine the doctrine of innocent agency, specifically whether the acts of the air courier and the police agent could be attributed to the appellant for the purposes of establishing supply. Finally, the Court considered whether the offence, occurring at Perth Airport, was committed within Western Australia for the purposes of section 80 of the Constitution, given the Supreme Court was exercising federal jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that the jury's conviction was sound, as the evidence established that the appellant had consigned the drugs with the intention of them reaching Mr Yanko, who received the package from a person acting as an agent of the appellant. The Court held that the acts of the air courier and the police agent could be imputed to the appellant under the doctrine of innocent instrumentality, meaning the "supply" was effectively carried out by the appellant through these agents. The Court found that actual receipt by the intended recipient was not a necessary element for "supply" under the relevant legislation. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence was committed in Western Australia, and therefore, the trial in that State was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.