REILING v Britton Summary

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: REILING -v- BRITTON [2008] WASC 184

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 22 AUGUST 2008

DELIVERED : 22 AUGUST 2008

FILE NO/S: SJA 1054 of 2008

BETWEEN: ANDREW REILING
Appellant
AND
STEPHEN ANDREW DAVID BRITTON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE V C EDWARDS
File No  :NO 367 of 2007

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences - Diazepam not a schedule drug - Plea of guilty - No offence

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A J Maughan
Respondent: Mr H D Leith

Solicitors:

Appellant: Andrew Maughan & Associates
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

McKECHNIE J: Following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of charges of possessing a prohibited drug in respect of a prominent Western Australian, police began an examination of their files going back a number of years. As a result, six matters have been identified where persons were convicted, following their pleas of guilty, of possession of a prohibited drug, namely, diazepam.
Each has now sought an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal. I directed that the extensions of time, applications for leave to appeal and the appeals be heard together. In each case the respondent has filed submissions conceding the appeals. In each case the prohibited drug was said to be diazepam. The appellant also pleaded guilty to possession of an implement; that conviction is unchallenged.
Diazepam is a benzodiazepine derivative and is widely prescribed. It is a drug capable of addiction and misuse. In order to be a prohibited drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) the drug must be listed in sch 1 of that Act or in the Poisons Act 1964 (WA), sch 8 and sch 9, or be the subject of an order under the Poisons Act as a specified drug. Diazepam is not listed in any of those schedules or in any order. Accordingly diazepam is not, in Western Australia, a prohibited drug. Notwithstanding the plea of guilty by the appellants their conviction is not legally sustainable because no offence was committed. The concession by the respondent is rightly made.
The orders will be that time within which to appeal is extended, leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed, the conviction quashed. The magistrate imposed a global fine for both offences. I order that $300 of the fine be remitted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Reiling v Britton, the High Court of Australia was presented with a case where the appellant, Reiling, sought to overturn a conviction for drug offences. The respondent, Britton, had been charged under the Drugs of Dependence Act with the possession of diazepam, which was alleged to be a scheduled drug. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge, but later contested the conviction on the basis that diazepam was not, in fact, a scheduled drug. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the conviction was valid given the appellant's argument about the classification of diazepam.

The legal issues at hand primarily revolved around the interpretation of the Drugs of Dependence Act and the classification of diazepam as a scheduled drug. The court needed to ascertain whether the appellant's plea of guilty could stand when the substance in question was not actually a scheduled drug under the legislation. The court also considered the ramifications of a guilty plea in circumstances where the substance involved was misclassified, and whether this misclassification rendered the conviction invalid. The central question was whether the error in the classification of diazepam could lead to the quashing of the conviction and the allowance of the appeal.

The High Court held that the misclassification of diazepam as a scheduled drug constituted a fundamental error in the conviction process. The court reasoned that a plea of guilty could not stand when the substance in question was not, in fact, a scheduled drug under the relevant legislation. The court further found that this error was not merely a technicality but rather a significant one that undermined the validity of the conviction. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's plea of guilty was rendered ineffective by the misclassification of the drug.

REILING v Britton

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established