Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003 - NSW ...

Endnotes
83
This includes cannabis-smoking implements such as bongs, pipes etc.
84
Calculated by dividing the number of occasions where one or more drugs were seized by the number of indications by drug
detection dogs that led to a search of a vehicle and/or its occupants. We have endeavoured to exclude searches that were not
a result of a drug detection dog indication but conducted for some other reason e.g. the police officer formed a reasonable
suspicion that there may be drugs in the vehicle and/or in the possession of occupants independent of an indication.
85
This drug was located alongside a garbage bin near a check point — no person has been charged in respect of this seizure.
NSWPF COPS ref: E29962143.
86
It appears that this figure may be incorrect given that police did not create 192 COPS events to record all searches. We sought
clarification from senior police who conducted the operation. However, at the time of finalising this report, no advice had been received.
87
Police conducted a further 19 searches that were not based on a drug detection dog indication.
88
All located on one person.
89
Located on two separate persons in the same vehicle.
90
See www.erowid.org (accessed 17 April 2008).
91
Gross weight includes any packaging. For further discussion of the use of gross weights, see paragraph 13.3.3 ‘Drug
packaging’ in NSW Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, June 2006, p.167.
92
In addition to any fines or other penalties, each successfully prosecuted charge incurred $70 in court costs.
93
Net weight of drug seized (gross weight = 33.6g).
94
Initially fined $300. However, penalty successfully appealed in the District Court.
95
We have assumed that 1 tablet = 0.25g. No action taken in respect of this seizure as it involved a young, drug affected person
who was directed by police to a local hospital for medical attention.
96
This represents an indictable amount. However, this drug seizure only resulted in a possess prohibited drug charge,
suggesting that the drug packaging contributed significantly to the gross weight.
97
This is a back-up charge for the supply prohibited drug charge. For further discussion of back-up charges, see paragraph
13.4.4.1 ‘Back-up possess charge’ in NSW Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, June
2006, p.170.
98
Powder seized believed to be ecstasy.
99
An appeal on severity has been lodged. At the time of finalising this report, this appeal had not been determined.
100
One person found in possession of three indictable quantities of drugs.
101
The supply charge was withdrawn and the person convicted of possess prohibited drug. For further discussion of this issue,
see paragraph 13.4.8 ‘Withdrawal of supply charges’ in NSW Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs)
Act 2001, June 2006, pp.172–3.
102
This figure includes two back-up charges for the supply prohibited drug >indictable quantity (not cannabis) charges.
103
See Table 4 ‘Operational costs’ at paragraph 5.6.1 for a breakdown of the number of officers and dogs at each operation.
104
For a detailed discussion of the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme, including an outline of the eligibility criteria, see paragraph
15.5.1 ‘Cannabis Cautioning Scheme’ in NSW Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001,
June 2006, pp.235–40. We note that police do not have a similar option in relation to persons found in possession of small
amounts of drugs other than cannabis. As a result of the review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, we
recommended that the Attorney General’s Department consult with NSW Police and NSW Health to consider the formation of
a steering committee to formulate a trial of a pre-court diversion program for persons found in possession of small amounts
of drugs other than cannabis with an emphasis on drug assessment, treatment and education. The recommendation was
supported by the (then) Attorney General, the NSW Police Force and NSW Health. We received recent advice from the
Attorney General’s Department (email correspondence on 6 February 2008) advising that the department has consulted with
police and health portfolios and that “the proposal underlying the recommendation is not being progressed at this time.”
105
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s.10(1). Maximum penalty (prescribed in s.21) is $2,200, imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
106
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s.11(1). Maximum penalty (prescribed in s.21) is $2,200, imprisonment for 2 years, or
both. It is not an offence to be possession of a syringe or needle (s.11A).
107
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, s.12(1). Maximum penalty (for the first offence) is $2,200,
imprisonment for 2 years, or both. A person convicted of this offence may also be disqualified from holding a driver’s licence
pursuant to Division 3 Part 3 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999.
108
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s.25(1). Maximum penalty (prescribed in s.30(3)) is $5,500, imprisonment for 2 years, or
both where the matter is dealt with summarily (in the Local Court).
109
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s.25(1). Maximum penalty (prescribed in s.31(3)) is $11,000, imprisonment for 2 years,
or both where the matter is dealt with summarily (in the Local Court).
110
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s.25(1). Maximum penalty (prescribed in s.32(g)) is $220,000, imprisonment for 15
years, or both. Charges of this serious nature are dealt with on indictment (usually in the District or Supreme Court) and not
summarily (in the Local Court).
111
Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol.
112
See case study 10 (at paragraph 4.5).
113
Advice from the NSW Police Force, 14 March 2008.
114
For further discussion of section 10 dismissals, see paragraph 4.7.1.2 ‘Dismissal and conditional discharge’ in NSW
Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003, January 2005, pp.34–5. See also
paragraph 13.6.6 ‘Dismissal of charge and conditional discharge (without proceeding to a conviction)’ in NSW Ombudsman,
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, June 2006, p.181.
115
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s.9.
116
See case study 12 (at paragraph 4.7.3) for further details of this incident.
117
Please note, the information is from the NSW Police Force version of events contained in the COPS Event narratives.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Trial) Act 2003
23