RATCLIFF, Lillian v R

Judgment

1. [1]

   BATHURST CJ: Ms Lillian Ratcliff (the appellant) was charged with two counts of supply of a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (Drug Act). Along with Ms Kerry Ann Buckman, whose appeal was heard simultaneously with this appeal, the appellant argued that s 25(1) of the Drug Act was invalid as being inconsistent with Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

2. [2]

   Freeman DCJ dismissed the appellant's motion to quash the indictment on this ground but granted the appellant a certificate under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to appeal to this Court.

3. [3]

   The appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal of Ms Buckman and each of the appellant and Ms Buckman adopted the other's submissions. I have set out the legislative framework and summarised the submissions in my judgment in respect of the appeal of Ms Buckman. It is unnecessary to repeat what I have said there.

4. [4]

   For the reasons I have given in my judgment in respect of Ms Buckman's appeal, I am of the view there is no inconsistency between s 25(1) of the Drug Act and Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth). It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.

5. [5]

   BEAZLEY P: I agree with the reasons and with the orders proposed by Bathurst CJ.

6. [6]

   HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Bathurst CJ.

7. [7]

   BLANCH J: I agree that for the reasons given by the Chief Justice the appeal should be dismissed.

8. [8]

   PRICE J: I agree with Bathurst CJ.