Rizeq v Western Australia

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by John Rizeq, a resident of New South Wales, against his convictions for offences under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (WA). Mr Rizeq was indicted in the District Court of Western Australia, which was exercising federal jurisdiction because the matter was between a State and a resident of another State, as contemplated by s 75(iv) of the Constitution. The jury returned a majority verdict of guilty, which was accepted by the District Court under s 114(2) of the *Criminal Procedure Act 2004* (WA), leading to Mr Rizeq's conviction.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the provisions of the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (WA) and the *Criminal Procedure Act 2004* (WA) were validly applied by the District Court when exercising federal jurisdiction, and whether s 80 of the Constitution, which mandates a jury trial, required a unanimous verdict in these circumstances. Specifically, the Court had to determine the operation of s 79 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) in relation to the relevant State legislation.

The High Court reasoned that s 79 of the *Judiciary Act* is intended to fill gaps in Commonwealth law when a court is exercising federal jurisdiction, by adopting applicable State laws. However, it distinguished between provisions that define the offence itself and procedural provisions. The Court held that s 6(1)(a) of the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (WA), which created the offence, applied directly and was not dependent on s 79 of the *Judiciary Act* for its force. In contrast, s 114(2) of the *Criminal Procedure Act 2004* (WA), which permitted majority verdicts, was a procedural provision that would be picked up and applied by s 79 of the *Judiciary Act* if necessary. Because the offence provision applied directly, s 80 of the Constitution was not engaged in a way that would invalidate the majority verdict.

The appeal was dismissed.