Police v Hogue - [2013] QMC 10

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Hogue [2013] QMC 10

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

AIDAN DAVID JOHN HOGUE

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG209116/12(0)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Mount Isa

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2013, 14 March 2013

MAGISTRATE:

Madsen RJ

ORDER:

Defendant found guilty as charged.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- DRUG OFFENCES – definition of Dangerous Drug – whether a synthetic drug is a Dangerous Drug – definition of “substantially similar chemical structure” and “substantially similar pharmacological effect”

Drugs Misuse Act 1986, s 4

COUNSEL:

Cooper VR (sergeant) for prosecution

Salehakon R for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution on own behalf

Apex Law for defendant

This decision has been prepared whilst the evidence is fresh in my mind. I have prepared a decision with reference to a transcript.

I have considered all the evidence. In making my finding I will refer to only some of the evidence. The evidence I have not referred to has been considered.

Aidan Hogue was charged that on 12 August 2012 that Mt Isa in the state of Queensland he unlawfully had possession of a dangerous drug.

That drug was said to be 5-Fluoro JWH-122 or what I will describe as the substance.[1]
[1] more particularly described in the certificate of analysis dated 12 September 2012 -Exhibit 7

There was no dispute about the date time and place of the alleged offence[2].
[2] transcript at page 19

It was eventually conceded that Mr Hogue had possession of a substance[3].
[3] discussion in respect of this issue appears on the transcript at page 19 line13

It was alleged that the substance was a substance which by section 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 is a dangerous drug[4].
[4] Particulars dated 14 March 2013.

A number of formal objections were taken to the charge, to the particulars, to the certificate of analysis.

It was said that the substance was not a dangerous drug as defined.

It was also said that on the evidence Aidan Hogue had an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief as to fact - which in effect, was that the substance that he had in his possession was not unlawful drug.

Particulars

An objection was taken at the outset to the format of the particulars. I declined to allow the objection and gave brief reasons at that time. Relevantly Aidan Hogue had previously pleaded not guilty to the charges on 4 December 2012 in the presence of his solicitor and at that time the certificate of analysis had been emailed to his solicitor. The amended or substituted charge that he pleaded not guilty to on the morning of the hearing was in all but one respect, the same as that charge which was pleaded guilty to on 4 December 2012. The difference was in respect of the description of the dangerous drug which was amended to reflect that which was described in the certificate of analysis. It was further said, that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v Hogue

Details

AGLC: Police v Hogue [2013] QMC 10
Case: [2013] QMC 10
Decision Date: 8 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Hogue involved the prosecution of the defendant on drug-related charges. The defendant was alleged to have possessed a synthetic drug that was claimed to be a dangerous drug under the relevant legislation. The case was heard in the relevant criminal court, which was tasked with determining the legality of the defendant’s possession and whether the substance in question was indeed a dangerous drug. The court was required to interpret the definitions of "dangerous drug," "substantially similar chemical structure," and "substantially similar pharmacological effect" as set out in the legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the synthetic drug possessed by the defendant qualified as a dangerous drug under the relevant statutory provisions. This involved a detailed analysis of the definitions provided in the legislation, specifically focusing on the chemical and pharmacological similarities between the synthetic drug and substances already classified as dangerous drugs. The court had to decide whether the synthetic drug had a substantially similar chemical structure and pharmacological effect to those substances already listed as dangerous drugs.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined the legislative definitions and compared them with the characteristics of the synthetic drug in question. The court concluded that the synthetic drug did indeed have a substantially similar chemical structure and pharmacological effect to those substances that were already classified as dangerous drugs. As a result, the court found the defendant guilty as charged. The court's interpretation of the statutory definitions was pivotal in reaching this decision, as it confirmed that the synthetic drug fell within the scope of the legislation defining dangerous drugs.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was found guilty of the drug-related charges. This decision underscores the importance of precise statutory interpretation in criminal cases involving drug offences, particularly concerning substances that may not have been explicitly listed in legislation but can be encompassed by the definitions provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant found guilty as charged.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Police v Hogue [2013] QMC 10
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v AIDAN DAVID JOHN HOGUE (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG209116/12(0)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Charge
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Mount Isa
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2013, 14 March 2013
MAGISTRATE:	Madsen RJ
ORDER:	Defendant found guilty as charged.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- DRUG OFFENCES – definition of Dangerous Drug – whether a synthetic drug is a Dangerous Drug – definition of “substantially similar chemical structure” and “substantially similar pharmacological effect” Drugs Misuse Act 1986, s 4
COUNSEL:	Cooper VR (sergeant) for prosecution Salehakon R for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Prosecution on own behalf Apex Law for defendant