Citation: Julius Yates v Regina [2016] NSWDC 326
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 November 2016
Judge(s): Judge AC Scotting
Background
The appellant was working as a bar attendant at licensed premises in Sydney's CBD when two undercover police officers, operating under a Controlled Operation Authority, entered with the intention of purchasing prohibited drugs. In conversation with the appellant, the officers indicated they were looking to buy drugs. The appellant told them he knew someone who could help, and shortly afterwards confirmed he was the person the supplier had nominated as able to provide pricing information. He then quoted $300 for a gram of cocaine.
About an hour later, each officer purchased approximately one gram of cocaine from a male outside the premises, each paying $300. On returning inside, the appellant asked how they had gone.
The appellant was convicted in the Local Court of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug under section 25(1) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He appealed to the District Court, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
Legal Issues
- Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to "taking part in the supply" of a prohibited drug within the meaning of sections 3 and 6 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
- Whether there was a sufficient evidentiary link between the appellant and the ultimate supply to the officers
- Whether assisting the buyers (rather than the supplier) could constitute taking part in supply
Decision
Judge Scotting conducted an independent review of the evidence, as required under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Because no witnesses were called in the Local Court and the appellant did not challenge the accuracy of the recorded conversations, there were no credit findings to reconsider. The judge accepted the conversations occurred as recorded.
The court identified four specific steps the appellant took in the supply process: telling the officers he knew a potential supplier; confirming the identity of that supplier; volunteering that he was the person the supplier had nominated as the pricing contact; and then actually quoting the price of $300 per gram. Each of these, the court found, constituted a step in the process of the supplier offering or agreeing to supply cocaine, within the extended definition of "supply" under section 3.
The court rejected the argument that an evidentiary link between the appellant and the ultimate transaction was necessary. Under sections 3 and 6, proof of participation in any step in the supply process is sufficient, and actual supply does not even need to occur, provided supply was in contemplation. The court was nonetheless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the particular supply because he admitted to being the nominated pricing contact and then quoted the price that was charged.
The court also dismissed the argument that assisting the buyers rather than the seller could not constitute taking part in supply. As a matter of fact, the appellant assisted the supplier by directing the officers to him and providing pricing information. As a matter of law, even a purchaser can be guilty of taking part in supply, because requesting or accepting a supply and providing payment are themselves steps that cause the supply to occur.
Orders Made
- Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Under sections 3 and 6 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a person takes part in supply by participating in any step in the supply process, including confirming the identity of a supplier and quoting a price on that supplier's behalf.
- Actual supply does not need to be proven. A conviction for knowingly taking part in supply can be established where supply was merely in contemplation, as affirmed in DPP (SA) Reference No 2 of 1995 and Deng v R.
- The District Court confirmed that no direct financial benefit or formal involvement in the transaction is required for a finding of participation in supply. The court expressly declined to infer that the appellant profited from the supply.
- An evidentiary link connecting the accused to the actual exchange of drugs is not a necessary element of the offence. Participation in a prior step in the supply process is sufficient.
- The court confirmed, following prior authority, that even buyers can take part in supply, because requesting a drug purchase and providing payment are themselves steps that cause the supply to occur.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 18(1)
- Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 3, 6, 25(1)
Cases
- Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137
- Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244
- Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
- Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) Reference No 2 of 1995 (1995) 65 SASR 508
- Deng v R (1996) 91 A Crim R 80
- R v Zaiter [2005] NSWCCA 61