R v Aaron Brian Aston

[2018] NSWDC 422

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Aaron Brian Aston [2018] NSWDC 422

Hearing dates:

13 June 2018

Date of orders:

14 June 2018

Decision date:

14 June 2018

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Neilson DCJ

Decision:

Application for adjournment dismissed

Catchwords:

CRIME – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application by accused to seek evidence to bolster his “Carey” defence – Accused’s case was that he accepted about 110 “pills” of MDA from X outside a dance party in order to take them inside the dance party to return them to X in consideration of payment of $600

 

Consideration and the meaning of “supply” in Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, section 3

  So called “Carey” defence not available on accused’s own case – Adjournment application futile – Adjournment refused

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:

Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281
R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
R v Maginnis [1987] 1 AC 303

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Aaron Brian Aston (Accused)
Regina (Crown)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Tuckey (Accused)
Ms A Philpot (Crown)

  Solicitors:
Toomey Defence Lawyers (Accused)
ODPP (Crown)

File Number(s):

2016/370646

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Yesterday afternoon the accused was arraigned on an indictment containing one charge. The charge is that on 10 December 2016 at Sydney Olympic Park in this State, he did supply a prohibited drug namely 3 ,4 methylenedioxyamphetamine. To that offence the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

2. Currently before me is an application by the accused for an adjournment, to seek evidence to buttress what was referred to by learned counsel for the accused as a “Carey defence.” The formal indictment refers to both s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and s 29 of the same Act. Section 29 of the Act commences thus;

“A person has in his or her possession an amount of a prohibited drug which is not less than the trafficable quantity of the prohibited drug shall, for the purposes of this Division, be deemed to have the prohibited drug in his or her possession for supply, unless:

(a) the person proves that he or she had the prohibited drug in his or her possession otherwise than for supply, or ...”

The Crown case summary, exhibit VD2, contains this:

“1. On Saturday 10 December 2016, police were engaged in ‘Operation Milpulling’ at Sydney Olympic Park for ‘Knockout Curcuz Dance Party.’ The Operation included the authorised use of drug detection dogs.

2. At about 6.50pm, Aaron Aston (‘the accused’) was approached by an officer handling a drug detection dog near the entry gates to the party. The drug detection dog stopped at the accused and indicated that he had prohibited drugs on his person.

3. The accused was cautioned by the dog handler.

The officer said: ‘Do you have any illegal drugs on you?’

The accused said: ‘Yes. I have some pills down my pants.’

The officer said: ‘About how many?’

The accused said: ‘About 110.…