Tabe v The Queen

The case of *Tabe v The Queen* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning charges of unlawfully possessing a dangerous drug and attempting to possess a dangerous drug. The appellant, Graham Victor Tabe, was charged as an accessory to Ms Nicole Janet Briggs, who had pleaded guilty to attempting to possess methylamphetamine. The Crown contended that the appellant aided and abetted Ms Briggs in her attempt to possess the drug, and therefore was guilty of the offence. The central issue revolved around the mental element required for both possession and attempted possession of dangerous drugs under Queensland law.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the offence of possession of a dangerous drug under s 9 of the *Drugs Misuse Act 1986* (Qld) required proof of a mental element, and whether the offence of attempting to possess a dangerous drug under s 4(1) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) also necessitated proof of a mental element. Specifically, the court had to determine if custody of a dangerous drug without knowledge of its contents was sufficient to establish possession or an attempt to possess, and whether the requisite state of knowledge differed between a principal offender and an alleged accessory.

The High Court reasoned that the term "possession" under s 9 of the *Drugs Misuse Act* inherently involves a mental element, requiring the accused to know they have custody of a substance that is or is likely to be a dangerous drug. Furthermore, under Queensland law, an attempt to commit an offence requires an intention to commit that specific offence. Therefore, Ms Briggs could not be guilty of attempting to possess dangerous drugs unless she intended to obtain possession of dangerous drugs, not merely an envelope containing an unknown substance. The appellant, as an accessory, could only be convicted if Ms Briggs possessed the requisite intention to commit the principal offence. The Court noted that the arguments presented by the appellant had not adequately addressed this fundamental requirement of proving the principal offender's intent.

The appeal was dismissed.