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

Chapter 8. Targeting drug supply
Parliamentary debate on the Drug Premises Act indicates that the legislation was aimed at major and organised criminals who are
operating drug premises. The understanding that the Act would be particularly useful in dealing with this type of offender was reflected in
references made to drug barons, major and organised criminals, the big end of town and to professional criminality in debate about the Act.
Concerns expressed by some parliamentarians about certain aspects of the legislation, such as the reversal of the onus of proof, 708
appeared to be assuaged by the assurance that the Act would assist police in dealing with this type of offender. One member of
parliament, for example, who considered that aspects of the legislation constituted a departure from fundamental principles of criminal
justice, conceded that the law may nonetheless “be justified by the need for effective powers to combat the drug trade”. 709 There were
also concerns expressed in parliamentary debate, and in submissions to our discussion paper, that the legislation may target user/
dealers, instead of high level drug suppliers.
Not all aspects of the illicit drug trade are targeted by the Act. Cannabis leaf, resin and oil have been excluded from the application of the
legislation. 710 In the second reading speech, the Attorney General explained that these substances were excluded because they “are not
usually a feature of the drug premises that the bill is aimed at”. 711 Some police have been critical of the exclusion of cannabis from the Act.
In this chapter, we will examine the level of drug supply that the Drug Premises Act appears to be targeting. It is important to note,
however, that NSW Police have in most instances only provided information about uses of the Act where charges have been laid. 712
8.1. Organised and professional criminals and high level drug supply
Assessing the level of drug supply that the Drug Premises Act is targeting was an important research question for this review. However,
before considering the data that we have collected to examine this question, it is worthwhile outlining the methodological issues that arise
in assessing the level of drug supply that is being targeted.
While an important objective of the Drug Premises Act was to target major and organised criminals operating drug premises, there
are no clear, consistent definitions of what constitutes an offender of this type. The terms organised crime and organised criminal are
rarely defined in media or public debate, or by law enforcement agencies themselves. 713 A recent article made this point, and noted the
difficulties of categorising particular types of criminal activity as organised crime:
Organised criminals are offenders who possess a reasonable degree of skill and organisational ability and may share a cultural
orientation with co-offenders (Sterling 1991; Hobbs 1994). Whether their offending should be labelled organised crime is open to
debate. Certainly some drug criminals have described themselves as participating in organised crime when they were organised
only to the extent that they had engaged in some planning and negotiation to transport and sell the drugs (Ovenden et al 1992). 714
There was a consensus among several senior police we spoke to for this review that the operation of drug premises constituted a form
of organised criminal activity. One senior officer from the Cabramatta LAC said that “the drug premises do require a certain amount of
organisation, because you need to have access to the unit in the first place, particularly to lease them”. 715 The commander of the Drug
Squad had a similar view, and believed that those who operate drug premises were doing so to earn a living from it:
If someone is going to go to the trouble to operate a drug house, within its definition, I think then by definition, that person is
an organised criminal, they’re showing that they have given some considerable thought to how to get around law enforcement
intervention and make things difficult, they are not just doing it just to support a habit, it is people who are making a livelihood out of
selling drugs. Just as I do my job, and put processes in place and do things to make sure things operate efficiently and problems
don’t occur for me, these people do the same, they put systems in place. 716
According to this definition, all of those people who operate drug premises are organised criminals.
708 See chapter, “Offences in the Drug Premises Act” for a discussion of the reversal of the onus of proof in several offences in the Act.
709 Ms M. Moore, NSWPD, 6 June, p. 14507. Ms Moore, MLA, also recommended changes to the Bill that aimed to provide additional safeguards to
the powers contained in the legislation.
710 Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act, s. 3.
711 The Hon R. Debus, second reading speech, NSWPD, 30 May 2001, p. 13998.
712 Two LACs that we audited advised us of instances in which a Drug Premises warrant was executed, but no charges were laid. The limitations in
the information provided to us for this review are discussed in the Chapter, “Methodology”.
713 Lorraine Beyer, “Organised crime and illegal drug importation: challenges in analysis”, Journal of the Australian Institute of Professional Intelligence
Officer, Vol. 10 No 2, 2002.
714 Ibid.
715 Interview, former crime manager, Cabramatta LAC, 21 August 2003.
716 Interview, Commander, Drug Squad, 30 September 2003.
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001 131