Ratcliff, Lillian v The Queen

[2013] NSWCCA 259

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	RATCLIFF, Lillian v R [2013] NSWCCA 259
Hearing dates:	25 - 26 March 2013
Decision date:	12 November 2013
Before:	Bathurst CJ at [1]; Beazley P at [5]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [6]; Blanch J at [7]; Price J at [8]
Decision:	Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to certificate under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - motion that indictment be quashed based on inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws dismissed. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - whether there is inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws - whether s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) is inconsistent with Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Pt 9.1 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Lillian Ratcliff (Appellant) Crown (Respondent) Attorney General of NSW (Intervening)
Representation:	Counsel: A Healey (Appellant) M Cinque (Respondent) M G Sexton SC and G Wright on behalf of the Attorney General Solicitors: Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Ltd (Appellant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2009/268587
Publication restriction:	No
Decision under appeal	Jurisdiction: 9101 Date of Decision: 2010-11-09 00:00:00 Before: Freeman DCJ File Number(s): 2009/268587

Judgment

1. BATHURST CJ: Ms Lillian Ratcliff (the appellant) was charged with two counts of supply of a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (Drug Act). Along with Ms Kerry Ann Buckman, whose appeal was heard simultaneously with this appeal, the appellant argued that s 25(1) of the Drug Act was invalid as being inconsistent with Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

1. Freeman DCJ dismissed the appellant's motion to quash the indictment on this ground but granted the appellant a certificate under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to appeal to this Court.

1. The appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal of Ms Buckman and each of the appellant and Ms Buckman adopted the other's submissions. I have set out the legislative framework and summarised the submissions in my judgment in respect of the appeal of Ms Buckman. It is unnecessary to repeat what I have said there.

1. For the reasons I have given in my judgment in respect of Ms Buckman's appeal, I am of the view there is no inconsistency between s 25(1) of the Drug Act and Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth). It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.

1. BEAZLEY P: I agree with the reasons and with the orders proposed by Bathurst CJ.

1. HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Bathurst CJ.

1. BLANCH J: I agree that for the reasons given by the Chief Justice the appeal should be dismissed.

1. PRICE J: I agree with Bathurst CJ.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 November 2013