Page 1335 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 April 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

circumstance, the person is taken to have possessed the substance with the intention of using some or all of it to manufacture a controlled drug.

The second presumption states that if a person possessed a marketable quantity of a substance with the intention of using some or all of it to manufacture a controlled drug, the person is taken to have done so with the intention of selling some or all of the drug so manufactured.

Like the reasons for the commonwealth including presumptions to apply to their possession of precursor offences, this proposed amendment is to ensure that we have an offence which is enforceable to target those involved in the illegal sale and manufacture of controlled drugs. The government believes this is proportionate and the least restrictive means to achieving the enforceability of the offence.

I think a point made in the debate is well worth repeating. Where someone possesses the precursor and it has been proved that they have an intent to manufacture, they are well on the way, and in fact they already are, to committing a serious criminal offence. I draw members’ attention to this. It is an offence in the territory to manufacture a controlled drug, full stop—no question about the amount manufactured; no question about whether you intended to sell that drug. It is already a serious offence and it attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Also, you do not need to actually manufacture a controlled drug to attract this charge. If you take enough steps along the way to manufacture then you can be charged with attempting to manufacture a controlled drug. This highlights that the behaviour we are talking about here is not innocent nor is it inadvertent; it is already a serious offence.

I can agree with much of what Mr Rattenbury has said in this place about the presumption of innocence. I agree that any limitation on this human right should only be considered where the limitation can be clearly demonstrated and justified. It is irrefutable that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. However, where I depart from Mr Rattenbury is his suggestion that the limitation on the presumption in this case goes beyond what is reasonable. The government continues to be of the view that the importance of the conduct addressed by 612(5) and the nature and extent of the limitation upon the presumption of innocence means that this new proposed section is justified in all of the circumstances.

Question put:

That clause 23 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video