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

Case study 11.
Six men found on drug premises in inner city Sydney
Police conducted surveillance on a house in inner city Sydney that indicated the premises was used for the supply of heroin. A
search warrant was executed. Six Aboriginal men, aged from 19 to 51 years, were found in the house. 493 Two other men who
had also been standing outside when police arrived to execute the warrant fled, “and made good their escape”. 494 All six inside
the house were charged with being found on drug premises.
On the issue of whether the defendants had a lawful excuse for being on the premises, the event narrative states:
Once police had established the premises was being used for the supply of prohibited drugs. The occupants were
questioned, with not one of the occupants being able to give the actual name of the lessee of the premises nor could they give
a valid reason for being in the premises. 495
At court, the defendants did not dispute that the premises was a drug premises, or that each was there. However, each
pleaded not guilty and put forward a lawful excuse for being on the premises. 496
At court, the 19 year-old defendant said that he had arrived at the house five minutes before police arrived to execute the search
warrant. He said he was waiting for someone in the street, and that the front door of the house was open. He saw two people
he knew sitting in the front room, and went in to watch TV. 497 Another defendant, a 22 year old male, said that he had arrived at
the house about 30 minutes before the police and had gone there to see his cousin and that it was a place to hang out. 498 A
third, a 19 year old, said that he had gone there to “see mates”. 499 The fourth defendant, a 30 old male, said that he was visiting
his aunty who lived across the street from the house. He said he saw the boys across from her house and went over to borrow
a fork so he could eat the takeaway spaghetti bolognaise he had just bought. 500
The magistrate found that there had been “no specific evidence to dispute what each of the defendants had said in regard
to why they had come to the premises, nor had there been any evidence to dispute their relationship to the premises. In
dismissing the charges against all of the defendants, the magistrate said that each had satisfied the magistrate that:
…whilst they were on drug premises that in relation to the evidence before [me they] have satisfied me that they were
there for a lawful purpose or with a lawful excuse. 501
6.5. Residents of drug premises: dual purpose drug premises
In the second reading speech on the Drug Premises Act, the Attorney General stated that it is “characteristic of drug premises that they
are not used for lawful or domestic purposes”. 502 The Attorney General also said that the reverse onus was not taken lightly, but because
drug premises are not used for lawful or domestic purposes, it was reasonable to expect persons to show why they are on premises that
have been proven to be drug premises. 503
In our review of the legislation, almost all drug premises appeared to be domestic residences. These premises appeared to have a dual
purpose: as both domestic residences, and locations where illicit drug supply or manufacture was taking place. In one case involving this
type of domestic drug premises in Cabramatta, documented in the case study below, the magistrate reflected on the description of drug
premises in the second reading speech, and stated his view that drug premises could have a duality of function:
493 Two of the men were 19, the others were 20, 22, 30, 49 and 51 years old.
494 COPS event narrative, Inner Metropolitan Region, Drug Premises Incident 1.
495 Ibid.
496 Two the defendants did not appear in court, and one was later convicted in his absence. Downing Centre Local Court, Police v Daniel Bruce
Munro, 22 April 2002, p. 1
497 Downing Centre Local Court, Police v John Anthony Carr, Simon Robert Miles, Alexander Bruce Walker, Blake Edward Morgan, 10 April 2002, p. 5.
498 Ibid, p.15 and p.18.
499 Ibid, p.27.
500 Ibid, p. 42.
501 Ibid, p. 56.
502 The Hon. R. Debus, NSWPD, second reading speech, 30 May 2001, p. 13997.
503 Ibid.
90
NSW Ombudsman
Review of the Police Powers (Drug Premises) Act 2001