R v Camurtay

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had allowed an appeal by the respondent, Camurtay, against his conviction for an offence under s 235(2) of the *Criminal Code* (Cth). The dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase "possession of a thing" in the context of the offence of possessing a thing for use in the commission of a Commonwealth offence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had been in "possession" of a thing for the purpose of s 235(2) of the *Criminal Code* (Cth) when he was in a motor vehicle with another person who possessed a quantity of methylamphetamine. Specifically, the court had to determine if possession by one person in a shared space, such as a vehicle, could constitute possession by another person for the purposes of the offence, even if the latter did not have direct physical control over the prohibited item.

Kiefel CJ and Gordon J held that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of "possession" under s 235(2). Their Honours explained that possession requires a degree of control over the thing in question. While possession can be joint, it necessitates that each individual exercises some measure of control. In this instance, the respondent did not have sufficient control over the methylamphetamine to be considered in possession of it, as it was located in a bag belonging to another occupant of the vehicle, and there was no evidence that the respondent knew of its presence or had any ability to exercise control over it. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the respondent's conviction was reinstated.