R v Jackson

[2010] QSC 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jackson [2010] QSC 337

PARTIES:

R
v
JACKSON, Scott Bradley
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 639 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2010

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDER:

Pursuant to the nolle prosequi entered into by the Crown, the defendant discharged in relation to indictment 639/10.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Particular offences – Drug offences – Dealing and distribution of drugs – Trafficking or sale and supply – Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 4 – What constitutes an “offer”

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 4

COUNSEL:

V Trafford-Walker for the Crown
R W Haddrick the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown
Reardon & Associates the defendant

HIS HONOUR:  The accused, Scott Jackson, has pleaded guilty to
the offence of supplying a dangerous drug.  The circumstances
were that the accused was intercepted at Fortitude Valley on
the date of the alleged offence.  He was searched and in his
pocket was found a packet of white powder.  He told the police
that it contained salt. The material in the packet was subsequently analysed. It was found to contain some paracetamol, but the other ingredients, if any, were not identified in the analyst's certificate. It is conceded by the Crown that it did not contain any dangerous drug. The charge against the accused is based on the definition of supply in s 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act.  That definition is:

"Supply means:
...
(b) offering to do any act specified in paragraph (a)."

Paragraph (a) includes “give, distribute, sell, administer, transport or supply”.

The only evidence that the accused ever offered to sell the
drug is contained in a conversation which he had with the
police at the scene.  That conversation was video recorded on
a hand-held video recorder.  The quality of the sound is
variable, the quality of the picture poor.

The sound track discloses that at various times the accused
said to the police:  "Someone wanted to buy something.  He
rung me.  He rip me off before.  He asked any fast", a question which, it's common ground, referred to amphetamine.
The accused admitted that he had made up the salt mixture as
what he described as a rip and justified that conduct by
saying:  "He ripped me off before."  He said his purpose was
to get pay back.

I have listened to the recording, to the extent that it was
relevant, and am unable to get any more than that from it.  I
think it is common ground that there is no more to be had.

In my judgment, that evidence is insufficient to demonstrate
an offer within the meaning of the definition in the Drugs
Misuse Act.  I do not need, it seems to me, to finally
determine whether the word "offer" in that definition is used
in the sense which the word bears in contract law.  It seems
to me that on any common parlance use of the word, the
evidence simply does not sustain a conclusion that the accused
offered to sell the drug.

It follows that the plea which has been entered has been
entered in circumstances where the facts put before me do not
demonstrate the existence of an offence.  I will, unless the
Crown seeks to take some other course, direct that the plea be
vacated and a plea of not guilty be entered.  However, I am
prepared to allow the learned prosecutor time to take
instructions lest the Attorney-General wish to proceed
according to s 669A(2) of the Criminal Code or in case
the Crown wishes some other course to be taken.

...

HIS HONOUR:  Now, Ms Trafford-Walker-----

MS TRAFFORD-WALKER:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  -----this is the matter of Jackson again?

MS TRAFFORD-WALKER:  That's the case, your Honour.  Thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to take some further
instructions over the luncheon adjournment.  Your Honour,
given the circumstances and your Honour's view, I seek to
offer a nolle prosequi upon the indictment before the Court.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Return the indictment to the Crown
prosecutor.  Oh, you're going to file one, are you?

MS TRAFFORD-WALKER:  Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, all right.  Yes, very well.  That's filed.
I should make an order that he be discharged on that charge?

MS TRAFFORD-WALKER:  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  I order that the accused be discharged on the
count in indictment 639 of 2010.

- - - - -