R v Quint - [2023] NSWDC 190

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Quint [2023] NSWDC 190
Hearing dates: 17 April 2023 – 20 April 2023
Date of orders: 19 April 2023
Decision date: 07 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:
Defence of necessity not left to the jury

Catchwords:
CRIME – Drug offences – Cultivate prohibited plant – Defences – Necessity – Whether defence of necessity should be left to the jury

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 23
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 184

Cases Cited:
B v R [2015] NSWCCA 103
Braysich v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 434
R v Loughnan [1981] VR 443
R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542
Veira v Cook [2021] NSWCA 302

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jesse Quint (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Wiggins (Solicitor Advocate – Crown)
Mr D Pullinger (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
McGowan Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/00065408

JUDGMENT

Background

The accused, Jesse Quint, stood indicted on one count of cultivate a prohibited plant, namely 58 cannabis plants, in Armidale. This is an offence by reason of s 23(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).
The trial of the accused before a jury of twelve commenced in Armidale on 18 April 2023. Counsel for the accused had raised with the Court that the accused would, by admissions or agreed facts, accept that he had cultivated the stated number of cannabis plants and was not licenced to do so, but relied on the defence of necessity.
In summary, the “necessity” was said to be that the accused had, for some time, been receiving cannabis products, originally unlawfully sourced from the “black market” but subsequently from a Dr Katelaris. These cannabis products dramatically assisted the management or eradication of pain he suffered as a result of several medical conditions. Dr Katelaris was not a licenced medical practitioner at the time he supplied cannabis products to the accused, so that supply was also unlawful.
The accused became aware that Dr Katelaris may (or would) not be able to continue to provide him with the cannabis products. He said he feared becoming suicidal as a result of not having the cannabis products to medicate his pain. He said it was therefore necessary for him to cultivate the cannabis so he could have access to it for the pain relief.
After the close of the defence case, the Crown made an application that the accused had not discharged his evidential onus with respect to the elements of the defence of necessity such that the defence should not be left to the jury.
I heard submissions from each party. I formed the view that the Crown’s submissions should be accepted such that the defence of necessity should not be left to the jury. I was not able to give detailed reasons for that decision.
The trial continued and the accused was convicted of the count in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Quint

Details

AGLC: R v Quint [2023] NSWDC 190
Case: [2023] NSWDC 190
Decision Date: 07 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Quint, the dispute revolved around drug offences related to the cultivation of a prohibited plant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that the cultivation of the plant was necessary for medical purposes, invoking the defence of necessity. The prosecution contested this defence, asserting that it should not be available to the defendant in this context.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defence of necessity should be available to the defendant and, if so, whether it should be left to the jury to consider. The court examined the statutory framework governing drug offences and the common law principles that underpin the defence of necessity. The court considered the legislative intent behind the drug laws and the circumstances under which a necessity defence might be applicable. The court concluded that the defence of necessity, as traditionally understood, was not available to the defendant in this case because the statutory provisions did not explicitly provide for such a defence, and the circumstances did not warrant an extension of the common law in this manner.

Based on its reasoning, the court determined that the defence of necessity should not be left to the jury. The court held that the statutory provisions did not permit the defence of necessity in cases involving the cultivation of prohibited plants, and therefore, the jury should not consider this defence in their deliberations. The court's decision effectively precluded the defendant from raising the necessity defence before the jury.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defence of necessity not left to the jury

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Quint [2023] NSWDC 190
Hearing dates:	17 April 2023 – 20 April 2023
Date of orders:	19 April 2023
Decision date:	07 June 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Coleman SC DCJ
Decision:	Defence of necessity not left to the jury
Catchwords:	CRIME – Drug offences – Cultivate prohibited plant – Defences – Necessity – Whether defence of necessity should be left to the jury
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 23 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 184
Cases Cited:	B v R [2015] NSWCCA 103 Braysich v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 434 R v Loughnan [1981] VR 443 R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542 Veira v Cook [2021] NSWCA 302
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jesse Quint (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Wiggins (Solicitor Advocate – Crown) Mr D Pullinger (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) McGowan Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/00065408