Walters v The Queen

Walters appealed against his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug other than cannabis. The central dispute concerned whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Walters and his co-conspirators had agreed to traffic in the drug, as opposed to merely possessing it with an intention to supply it to others. The appeal was heard by Elkaim, Mossop and Wigney JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the essential elements of the offence of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether an agreement to possess a controlled drug with the intention of supplying it to others constituted an agreement to "traffic" within the meaning of the relevant legislation, or if it required proof of an agreement to supply the drug to a third party or parties.

The Court reasoned that the offence of conspiracy to traffic requires proof of an agreement to engage in the act of trafficking, which involves the supply of a prohibited drug. An agreement to possess a drug with the intention of on-supplying it to others, without more, does not necessarily equate to an agreement to traffic. The Court held that the evidence presented at trial did not establish an agreement to supply the drug to others, and therefore the essential elements of the conspiracy to traffic offence were not proven. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict and orders of the lower court, entered a verdict of acquittal, and ordered that the appellant be discharged.