Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 - NSW ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case study 18. Woman takes the fall for husband, allowing premises to be used as drug premises In this case, a woman was convicted of allowing the premises to be used as drug premises. Police had information regarding the commercial supply of a large quantity of heroin within the Sydney metropolitan area. They had identified a number of principles in the operation. Police also had phone intercept evidence that heroin was being pressed and supplied at a house in western Sydney. Officers arrived at 4.50 pm to execute a Part 2 search warrant at the house, and a woman answered the door. Police noted in the event narrative that the premises was “fortified with steel bar and grills on all of the doors and windows”. 549 When they searched the house, police found a hydraulic press and a mortar and pestle in the kitchen/laundry area. Several items were found in the defendants” bedroom, including $20,000 cash in a drawer next to the bed, and $6,000 in a chest of drawers. Under the mattress, a Phoenix self-loading pistol and a box of ammunition were also located. Traces of drugs were found on the money and on drug manufacturing equipment that was found in the house. The woman, who was a mortgagee of the premises, was charged with allowing the premises to be used as drug premises, goods in custody (relating to the money that was found), and storing a firearm unsafely. The magistrate found that all of these items, “not individually, but collectively” could amount to a charge of allowing premises to be used, and that the “only real issue … is a matter of knowledge”. 550 The woman claimed that the scales, the press and the firearm were brought to her house by a man she knew only by his first name, and about whom she knew little else. The woman said the money had been given to her by her estranged brother in law for safekeeping. In considering the woman’s evidence, the magistrate said: I have trouble in accepting the fact that the Defendant did not know what these items were that were brought to the house, bearing in mind the size of them and the fact that she didn’t know that drugs could, in fact, be manufactured at the premises. She, in fact, occupies the premises herself. As I say, the equipment certainly is something that she could not help but notice and as for saying she wasn’t aware, that the pistol was wrapped up in this blanket I have also trouble accepting. In fact, her initial response to question 190 in the Record of Interview was that she didn’t even know what a gun looked like. Again, I have trouble accepting the fact, as I say that she had a limited knowledge of [man’s first name] background, she allows him to enter the premises and place this gun underneath her bed. 551 The magistrate said that when the evidence is looked at collectively, the only reasonable hypothesis was that the defendant was “aware that the equipment was used in the manufacture of drugs and that she must have known that drug activity was taking place at the premises”. 552 The magistrate found all the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt. In sentencing the defendant, however, the magistrate considered the level of involvement that she had had in the drug manufacturing operation, determining that there was a “fairly strong inference that she’s the fall guy” and that “although everything’s found on the premises that she’s played a very minor part other than the fact that she owns the premises”. 553 The prosecution had conceded that the main participant in the activities at the house was the woman’s husband, but that there “wasn’t enough evidence to proceed against him”. 554 In sentencing the woman, a 37 year old Vietnamese woman who did not speak English, the magistrate said: … although certainly she knew it was going on but maybe because of custom, background, religion, whatever, rather than speak up she just accepted the fact that it was going on and did nothing about it rather than play an active role herself. 555 She was given a 12 month good behaviour bond for allowing her premises to be used as drug premises, she was fined $1,059 for possession of a firearm, and $500 for not keeping a firearm safely. She also received a six month suspended sentence for goods in custody, and the $26,000 was forfeited, as were all other items seized during the search warrant, to the Crown. 556 549 COPS event narrative, State Crime Command, Drug Premises Incident 8. 550 Bankstown Local Court, Police v My Thi Nguyen, 14 January 2003, p.7. 551 Ibid, p.8. 552 Ibid, p.8. 553 Ibid, p. 9. 554 Ibid, p. 10. 555 Ibid, p.11. 556 Ibid, p.11. 102 NSW Ombudsman Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001
Figure 13: Ages of people charged with allow premises to be used as drug premises – 1st offence Not known Number of persons charged 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 56 57 58 64 65 69 70 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Age 6.8.1. Demographic characteristics of people charged with allowing their premises to be used as drug premises The graph to the left shows the ages of people charged with allowing their premises to be used as drug premises. The ages of people charged with a second offence of allowing premises to be used as drug premises were 23, 34, 36 and 57. 6.8.2. Gender of people charged with allowing premises to be used as drug premises Sixty-two per cent (62%) of those charged with a first offence of allowing their premises to be used as drug premises were male, and thirty-eight per cent (38%) were female. Three of the four people charged with a second offence of allowing their premises to be used as drug premises were male, and one was female. 6.8.3. Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders charged with allowing premises to be used as drug premises Nine percent (9%) of the people charged with a first offence of allowing premises to be used as drug premises were Aboriginal/ Torres Straight Islanders. None of those charged for a second offence under this provision were Aboriginal/Torres Straight Islanders. Of those two charges for a second offence under this provision, both were dismissed no evidence offered, and no plea had been entered. In the table below, we have set out information on the penalties received by people who were convicted of allowing their premises to be used as drug premises. 557 Source: COPS database 557 No data was available from BOCSAR on persons convicted of a second offence of allowing premises to be used as drug premises. NSW Ombudsman Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 103
Page 1 and 2:
Review of the Police Powers (Drug P
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Preface ..................
Page 5 and 6:
Chapter 11. Drug move-on powers in
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements This report was re
Page 9 and 10:
Part One. Background. Chapter 1. In
Page 11 and 12:
Drug offences, unlike for example,
Page 13 and 14:
elieve is in a public place with th
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 2. Methodology In this chap
Page 17 and 18:
2.3.5. Health data NSP distribution
Page 19 and 20:
As the table indicates, more than o
Page 21 and 22:
2.4.7. Complaints The NSW Ombudsman
Page 23 and 24:
NSW Police advised us that calculat
Page 25 and 26:
Another data limitation is that COP
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 3. Legislative survey This
Page 29 and 30:
Once police have entered the suspec
Page 31 and 32:
The table below sets out the penalt
Page 33 and 34:
(c) that the nature and extent of t
Page 35 and 36:
The Act contains four additional in
Page 37 and 38:
A fortification removal notice is r
Page 39 and 40:
For example, section 39(3) of the Q
Page 41 and 42:
Part Two. Drug premises Chapter 4.
Page 43 and 44:
In the police training manual on th
Page 45 and 46:
Case study 2. Drug premises search
Page 47 and 48:
4.2.4. Presenting the application b
Page 49 and 50:
A Crime Manager we interviewed from
Page 51 and 52: applications. In this Act, an inves
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 5. The definition of drug p
Page 55 and 56: 5.2. Recommendation That Parliament
Page 57 and 58: 5.5.2. Section 11(2)(b): fortificat
Page 59 and 60: In our chapter on Cabramatta, we di
Page 61 and 62: The woman was found guilty of allow
Page 63 and 64: 5.5.5. Means or devices for drug us
Page 65 and 66: Number of Premises Figure 7. Razor
Page 67 and 68: However, no other evidence of drug
Page 69 and 70: • magnum revolver and a 0.357 mag
Page 71 and 72: 5.5.8. Section 11(2)(g): large amou
Page 73 and 74: The magistrate noted that there wer
Page 75 and 76: In relation to the money located on
Page 77 and 78: 5.7.6. Cars as drug premises As we
Page 79 and 80: … rather than being on the edge o
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 6. The Drug Premises Act -
Page 83 and 84: • the offence of being found on,
Page 85 and 86: With reverse onus, we didn’t have
Page 87 and 88: In the following section, we will d
Page 89 and 90: Officers from the State Crime Comma
Page 91 and 92: The second reading speech, which gi
Page 93 and 94: In the granny flat, police found ca
Page 95 and 96: Table 6. Pleas entered and court ou
Page 97 and 98: The magistrate said that he had a r
Page 99 and 100: 13. Allowing use of premises as dru
Page 101: The defendant says he was not there
Page 105 and 106: Table 12. Number of charges for var
Page 107 and 108: Chapter 7. Cabramatta 7.1. Introduc
Page 109 and 110: No. of Drug Premises Figure 14: Num
Page 111 and 112: Table 13. Information about drug pr
Page 113 and 114: It should be clear that this legisl
Page 115 and 116: The unit was in disarray, with spar
Page 117 and 118: 7.5. Level of drug supply the law i
Page 119 and 120: 7.5.3 Firearms, weapons and high le
Page 121 and 122: 7.6. Charges laid under the Drug Pr
Page 123 and 124: 7.6.4. Young Asian people and drug
Page 125 and 126: Of these 52 people, 31 people pled
Page 127 and 128: 7.8. Conclusion: Impact of the Drug
Page 129 and 130: By way of comment, the continuing a
Page 131 and 132: Chapter 8. Targeting drug supply Pa
Page 133 and 134: Table 18. Drug Misuse and Trafficki
Page 135 and 136: Low level drug suppliers are more l
Page 137 and 138: Other forms of organisation in evid
Page 139 and 140: Table 19. Drugs Located, State-wide
Page 141 and 142: Table 23. Drugs located, Northern R
Page 143 and 144: However, the submission concluded b
Page 145 and 146: To begin with, telephone intercepts
Page 147 and 148: The prohibited drugs that were loca
Page 149 and 150: One factor that appears to have per
show all

Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 - NSW ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?