R v Ah Lin

This case concerned an appeal by the Crown against a decision of Chubb J. of the Supreme Court of Queensland, who had quashed a conviction against the respondent, Ah Lin. Ah Lin had been found guilty by a Police Magistrate of unlawfully possessing opium, contrary to the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld). The magistrate had found that Ah Lin possessed "charcoal of opium," which is the residual product of smoked opium, and that he had obtained the original opium under a prescription from a legally qualified medical practitioner for his personal use, specifically to alleviate suffering from abstention.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the possession of "charcoal of opium" constituted an offence under the Act, notwithstanding that the original opium had been lawfully obtained for medicinal purposes. This required the court to interpret the definition of "opium" within the Act and consider the scope of the prohibition on possession. The court also had to determine whether the decision in *Moroney v. Quok Yen* (1908) St. R. Qd. 205, which had influenced Chubb J., was applicable to the present circumstances.

The court reasoned that section 21 of the Act broadly prohibited any person, other than those specifically exempted, from possessing "any opium for any purpose whatever." The definition of "opium" in section 3 explicitly included "every substance which is or contains the ash of opium, or charcoal of opium." Therefore, the plain wording of the Act rendered the possession of charcoal of opium unlawful for the respondent. While *Moroney v. Quok Yen* had held that possession of opium prescribed for medicinal use was not forbidden, the court distinguished the present case, finding that charcoal of opium was not a substance compounded exclusively for medicinal purposes and was not itself prescribed. The court considered that *Moroney v. Quok Yen*, insofar as it might suggest that possession of substances containing opium not compounded exclusively for medicinal purposes was lawful, was overruled.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The conviction was restored, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, with the penalty reduced to a nominal amount of one shilling, by consent of the Attorney-General for the Crown.