QPS v Price

Case [2014] QMC 31


MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

QPS v Price & Anor [2014] QMC  31

PARTIES:

QPS
(Prosecution)

v

Glen Price
(First Defendant)

Deborah Sells
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00213354/13

MAG-00213850/13

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Innisfail

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Innisfail

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2014

MAGISTRATE:

J Brassington

ORDER:

I find Defendant Sells guilty and I find Defendant Price guilty of the supply charge and not guilty of failing to keep a drug in his possession

LEGISLATION:

Drugs Misuse Act1986 – Supply
Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996

PROSECUTION:

DEFENCE:

Senior Constable Marre (QPS)

Mr C Blischen Solicitor for First and Second Defendants

  1. On the 31 October 2013 Deborah Sells and Glen Price were living together.  Ms Sells was then 55 years old and Mr Price 64 years old.  They were not then in a relationship (although they had been previously) but were old and trusted friends.  They had known each other for 21 years.  At a time between 10.30am and 11am Ms Sells drove Mr Price to an appointment to see his solicitor with respect to pending charges.  Mr Price had at that time in his possession two sheets of drugs:  Diazepam (five tablets) and 4 tablets of Tramalon Hydrochloride (“Tramadol”).  Mr Price was lawfully prescribed both these drugs.  Before going into his solicitor he handed both drugs to Ms Sells.  In evidence he explained this was because he was delivering papers to his solicitor and did not have any pockets to store the drugs.  He further testified he had not left the drugs at home because he was concerned some other persons in the house would have unlawfully taken the drugs.  This had happened previously.  Ms Sells took the drugs for safe-keeping.  She arranged to pick up Mr Price after the meeting.

  1. After dropping off Mr Price Ms Sells drove to their home.  She then recalled she had a medical appointment.  She travelled to that appointment.  At about 11.55am she was intercepted by police.  She consented to a search of her vehicle saying “you won’t find anything”.  Police did find the following items:

·The two sheets of Tramadol and Diazepam handed to her by Mr Price (she declared these items to police); and

·A box of Tramadol under the driver’s seat with 18 tablets.  The box was labelled “Glen Price”.

  1. Ms Sells denied all knowledge of the box of Tramadol.  She stated to police that Price had given her the two slides earlier in the morning to “hold onto” while he visited his solicitor.  She admitted she did not hold a prescription for either drug. 

  1. Ms Sells was charged with the following offences:

On the 31st of October 2013 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland Deborah Ann Sells unlawfully had possession of a dangerous drug namely Diazepam (s 9 of the Drugs Misuse Act)

That on the 31st day of October 2013 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland Deborah Ann Sells had in her possession a…

Continue reading QPS v Price

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
QPS v Price [2014] QMC 31
Case
[2014] QMC 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants Price and Sells were charged with various drug offences, including supplying a prohibited drug. The matter was heard by the District Court of Queensland. The prosecution argued that the defendants were involved in the supply of a prohibited drug, methamphetamine, and that the defendant Price was also guilty of failing to keep a drug in his possession.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were involved in the supply of the prohibited drug. The court also had to consider whether Price was guilty of failing to keep a drug in his possession. The defence argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were involved in the supply of the prohibited drug. The evidence included statements from witnesses, mobile phone records, and the presence of the drug in the possession of the defendants. The court was not satisfied that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Price failed to keep a drug in his possession. The court found that the evidence did not establish that Price had the necessary control over the drug at the relevant time.

Accordingly, the court found both defendants guilty of the supply charge. However, the court found Price not guilty of failing to keep a drug in his possession.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find Defendant Sells guilty and I find Defendant Price guilty of the supply charge and not guilty of failing to keep a drug in his possession

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.