Australian threshold quantities for ‘drug trafficking’: are they placing drug users at risk of unjustified sanction?

This study uses data on patterns of drug user consumption and purchasing to evaluate Australian legal threshold quantities to see whether Australian drug users are at risk of exceeding the thresholds for personal use alone. Introduction Drug trafficking in Australia is deemed a very serious offence, one for which legislators and courts have ruled general deterrence is paramount and ‘little mercy’ should be shown. A principal challenge has been how to effectively differentiate and sanction participants in the drug trade—particularly how to differentiate ‘traffickers’ from those who consume or purchase illicit drugs for personal use alone. To assist in this endeavour, all Australian states and territories have adopted legal thresholds that specify quantities of drugs over which offenders are either presumed to have possessed the drugs ‘for the purposes of supply’ and liable to sanction as ‘drug traffickers’ (up to 15 years imprisonment in most states), or in the case of Queensland, liable to sanctions equivalent to drug traffickers (up to 25 years imprisonment). Yet, in spite of known risks from adopting such thresholds, particularly of an unjustified conviction of a user as a trafficker, the capacity of Australian legal thresholds to deliver proportional sanctioning has been subject to limited research to date. This paper summarises key findings from a Criminology Research Grant funded project. The broader project examined this issue in two different ways—whether the thresholds are designed to filter traffickers from users and whether they enable appropriate sanctioning of traffickers of different controlled drugs. Herein, the focus is on the former—to what extent Australian legal thresholds unwittingly place users at risk of unjustified and disproportionate charge or sanction as traffickers

The Law of the Ruler?

The title of this article arises out of the misunderstanding that so long as there is a law, so long as the ruler (even a democratic one) has made valid law, then the rule of law operates. The question mark is intended to prompt consideration of whether or not, at least in New South Wales (NSW), the criminal law has truly become the law of the ruler—without proper consideration of the requirements of the just rule of law, the separation of powers in our democratic system of government, the independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights. I would like to make some observations on those requirements drawn from my own experience.Sydney Institute of Criminology; School of Social Sciences at the University of Western Sydne

Getting Justice Wrong

Adelaide Festival of Ideas session, Brookman Hall, 4:30pm, Saturday 14 July, 2001. Chaired by David Marr.http://adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au

Sex, Drugs and Money

Adelaide Festival of Ideas session, Bonython Hall, 2:45pm, Friday 13 July, 2001. Chaired by David Marr.http://adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au

Good Drugs, Bad Drugs: The Human Face of Addiction

Adelaide Festival of Ideas session, Adelaide Town Hall, 8:00pm, Friday 13 July, 2001. Chaired by Peter Sellars.http://adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au

The Decision to Prosecute: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Prosecutical Guidelines

The decision whether to prosecute an individual can potentially impact a number of private and public interests. In Australia, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in each jurisdiction provides written prosecutorial guidelines relating to the decision to prosecute. Little scholarly attention has focused on how these guidelines differ in form and impact across jurisdictions. This article undertakes a text-based comparative analysis of the guidelines to identify the key similarities and differences in how the decision to prosecute is articulated in the policies of different Australian jurisdictions. This analysis shows that the tests used across Australia are broadly similar, while also identifying a number of differences. We highlight the need for empirical research on the decision to prosecute, to provide an insight into how the decision to prosecute is operationalised in practice, and how different formulations of the same or similar tests might impact the decision-making process