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

Mr A was charged with organising a drug premises, this charge was filed in court. 409 He received a 5 year sentence for two supply
offences. 410 Ms B was not charged. Police have advised us that they did not believe they had sufficient evidence against her. 411
Mr C was also charged with being on, entering, or leaving drug premises, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months
imprisonment. 412 In the court transcript, there was no discussion of the facts of the case because of this guilty plea. Mr C was charged
with organising a drug premises, but this charge was filed in court. He was also charged with self administering drugs, for which he was
fined $75, and with possession, relating to the amphetamines, for which he was sentenced to a rising of the court. 413
5.7.8. User/dealers and the operation of drug premises
In parliamentary debate, and in submissions to our discussion paper, concerns were expressed that the Drug Premises Act may not target
high level drug suppliers, but may instead target user/dealers who are involved in drug premises as a consequence of their own drug use.
It was evident from our examination of 80 court transcripts relating to the use of the Act in Cabramatta, that 25 of those who had been
charged with an offence had a history of drug use and/or a history of drug addiction. However, it is important to note that a defendant’s
history of drug use/addiction will not always emerge at court.
It was also evident from our examination of event narratives that there were instances in which people who were involved in drug premises
were dealing drugs to support their own addiction. Several of these are documented below.
Police had obtained a drug premises search warrant for a house in a LAC in the Northern Region “as a result of police surveillance and
numerous intelligence reports”. 414 They arrested the occupier of the house, a forty-two year old male, as he walked in through the back
gate of his house. When they searched him, officers found 5.6 grams of heroin, and according to the event narrative, he “stated that
he…intended to sell half and self administer the other”. He told police that he had been obtaining this quantity of heroin two or three times
a week for the past two months to “finance his own habit”. 415
Inside the house, police also found numerous unused and used syringes, two sharps containers, 5 vials of methadone and 3 grams
of cannabis and some stolen property that the defendant told police he had received as payment for supplying heroin. The man later
admitted that he allowed his premises to be used by between six and ten people a day to administer heroin. 416
On another occasion, police executed a search warrant on premises in the Southern Region in late 2001. The basis upon which the
search warrant had been applied for is not noted in the event narrative. When police entered the premises they found two men in the
bathroom, one of whom had a tourniquet around his arm, and was about to self administer amphetamines. Both men were visiting the
premises, and admitted to police that they were intending to inject the drug.
When they searched the unit, police found numerous uncapped syringes, and a small resealable bag containing possible trace
amphetamine. They also found a baking dish with a brown residue baked onto it, which police believed had been an attempt to
manufacture amphetamine. They also found an esky with liquid that they believed was the first stage in the manufacture of amphetamine,
but the occupier of the premises reportedly told police that it was merely waste from storing food in the esky over a long period. In the
event narrative, police conclude the following about the premises:
As regards to the use of the premises as a drug house, police believe the premises to be used on a regular basis for illicit drug use.
The amount of syringes, empty resealable plastic bags, drug paraphernalia and the fact people were found about to administer
amphetamine to themselves it was evident the unit was being used to house drug users. 417
The occupier of the premises was charged with allowing his premises to be used as drug premises. The two drug users found on the
premises were not charged. The occupant pled guilty, and was given a 12 month good behaviour bond. The magistrate took the fact that
the occupier had sought some assistance for his drug problem into account, but made the following remarks about his involvement in the
drug premises:
409 A charge may be filed in court or kept on record when a person is convicted of other offences that attract higher penalties. In this case Mr A was
charged with several supply offences and the drug premises charge was filed in court.
410 For two counts of supplying between the small and indictable quantities of heroin and amphetamine.
411 Interview, police officer, Northern Region, 14 November 2003.
412 He was also charged with organising drug premises, but this charge was filed in court.
413 “Rising of the court” is a nominal penalty meted out where a person is convicted of the offence, but no custodial sentence, fine etc is imposed.
414 COPS event narrative, Northern Region, Incident 6, 10 January 2002.
415 Ibid.
416 Ibid.
417 COPS event narrative, Southern Region, Incident 2, 19 October 2001.
78
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001