Source: http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/2016_03_02_02_victorian_law/
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 12:18:21
Document Index: 370238551

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'arts 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'arts 1', 'art 3', 'arts 2', 'art 3']

Victorian law - The Law Handbook
Home » Contents » Fines, infringements and criminal law	Victorian law
For the purposes of Victorian law, the term “drug” means a drug of dependence. For the definition of drug of dependence, see section 4(1) and schedule 11 of the DPCSA. Recent amendments to the DPCSA have added synthetic cannabis and other synthetic substances to the list of drugs of dependence, as well as “analogues” of drugs. An analogue of a drug is a similar, but structurally modified version of the drug.
The DPCSA creates the following major drug offences:
•use;
•possession;
•trafficking; and
The use of a drug of dependence is an offence. Section 70(1) of the DPCSA defines “use” as including smoking, inhaling the fumes of, or introducing a drug of dependence into a person’s body.
The offence of use of a drug of dependence is a summary offence (s 75). The use of cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) carries a maximum penalty of up to 5 pu; there is no jail penalty, even for subsequent offences (s 75(a)).
The use of other drugs carries a maximum penalty of a fine of up to 30 pu or imprisonment for one year, or both (s 75(b)).
The Victoria Police and the Victorian courts have introduced several alternative schemes to deal with drug offenders. Some of these schemes aim to divert people from the criminal justice system, while other schemes focus on rehabilitating offenders with drug problems.
First-time cannabis or heroin users will normally be cautioned rather than charged. This decision is at the discretion of the police informant.
There are several support programs that assist people who are dependent on drugs or alcohol and who are appearing before the Magistrates’ Court.
The Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT)/Bail Support Program is a Magistrates’ Court program designed to assist people on bail who have a drug problem by providing access to treatment. The program can also provide assistance with accommodation, material aid, employment and training, and other social issues.
A person may be eligible for this program if they:
•have a drug problem;
•have been charged with a non-violent offence;
•are on bail;
•are not on any court order with a drug treatment component; and
•have been bailed to a court where the CREDIT/Bail Support Program operates.
The CREDIT/Bail Support Program currently operates at the Magistrates’ Courts in Ballarat, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Frankston, Geelong, Heidelberg, Moorabbin and Ringwood.
•they are appearing before a court where CISP operates (CISP operates at the Magistrates’ Courts in Melbourne, Sunshine and the La Trobe Valley);
•their charges or history indicate that support is required to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending;
•they have a physical or mental disability or illness;
•they have issues relating to drug or alcohol use, or relating to lack of social, family or economic support.
CROP is an extension of CISP into prisons that accommodate prisoners on remand. CISP assessment and liaison officers (CALOS) proactively identify remand prisoners who may be eligible for bail if appropriate community supports are put in place. CALOS are located at the Melbourne Assessment Prison, Metropolitan Remand Centre and the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. CROP is also provided to the Port Phillip Prison as required.
Anyone can refer a person to the CREDIT program or to CISP. The only requirement is that the person meets the eligibility criteria. The police might refer someone by bailing them to attend an assessment. Magistrates can also refer people. Alternatively, people can self-refer or have their legal representative contact the programs’ clinicians at court.
Once placed in one of the programs, a clinician arranges for the person to be assessed. Suitable treatment (provided by various support agencies) is arranged. If drug dependence is a problem, the clinician arranges treatment at an accredited drug treatment agency. Once a person is part of CREDIT or CISP, it becomes a condition of bail that they comply with all the directions of the program.
When the person returns to court, the clinician will have prepared a report for the magistrate. The program usually lasts three to four months, with reviews every month. A person’s performance during the program is taken into account at sentencing. Successful participation in the program should result in a lesser sentence and, in some cases, can make the difference between going to jail or not. However, it is not necessary to plead guilty in order to participate in either program.
CISP currently operates at the Magistrates’ Courts in Melbourne, Sunshine and the La Trobe Valley.
The Criminal Justice Diversion Program (see “Diversion” in Sentencing in the Magistrates’ Court) may also be relevant for first-time drug offenders. If the police informant consents to diversion, and if the magistrate is satisfied that diversion is appropriate, and if the accused “acknowledges responsibility” for the offence, the charges will be adjourned until after the accused has participated in the program. The accused is not required to formally plead guilty to the drug offence.
On completion of certain conditions of the program (such as undertaking drug treatment or counselling, making a donation to a charity, etc.) the court will discharge the accused without making any finding of guilt or imposing any sentence or penalty (s 59(4) Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic)).
Most people would strongly wish to avoid a conviction or finding of guilt for a drug offence. This is particularly important for those who wish to travel overseas, as any drug-related criminal record will make it difficult to enter a number of countries (see Understanding criminal records).
For more information, telephone the Senior Diversion Coordinator on 9628 7862, or go to the Magistrates’ Court website at www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au.
“Possession” is an indictable offence under section 73 of the DPCSA. The application of the common law to possession in that section has been affirmed by the full court of the Victorian Supreme Court in the decision of R v Clarke and Johnstone [1986] VR 643.
Under common law, a person is in possession of a drug if they have physical control or custody of the drug to the exclusion of others not acting in concert with the person. The prosecution must prove knowledge by the person of the presence of the drug and an intention by the person to possess the drug.
In many cases, custody of a drug may be sufficient evidence of possession, including the necessary mental element. This is because the inference of knowledge may often be drawn from the surrounding circumstances (Williams v The Queen [1978] HCA 49).
As well as its common law meaning, “possession” has an extended meaning under the DPCSA: section 5 states that a person is in possession of drugs if the drugs are:
•on any land or premises occupied by the person; or
•used, enjoyed or controlled by the person in any place whatsoever, unless the person satisfies the court to the contrary.
R v Clarke and Johnstone has authoritatively decided that section 5 of the DPCSA puts the onus on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt either occupation of the relevant land or premises where the drug was found or that the drug was used, controlled or enjoyed by the accused in any place whatsoever.
The legal test of occupation is having the requisite degree of control over land or premises so as to be able to exclude others. Mere use of premises is insufficient (see Fox v Warde [1978] VR 362; Thow v Campbell [1996] QCA 522; and R v Pisano [1997] 2 VR 342).
This is a “deeming” provision that shifts the burden of proof (albeit on the balance of probabilities) to the accused.
Deemed possession includes situations where the accused was:
4 possibly the owner or driver of a car containing drugs – on the basis that the drugs are “controlled” by them “in any place whatsoever”.
Note that the High Court has held in Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 that the section 5 deeming provision applies only to possession-type offences and does not apply to trafficking charges based on possession.
•Kural v The Queen [1987] HCA 16;
•He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] HCA 43;
•Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] HCA 57; and
•R v Clare (1993) 72 A Crim R 357.
•the identity of the drug; and
•that the quantity is a traffickable quantity,
then that is prima facie evidence of trafficking (s 73(2)) (see “Trafficking”).
Cultivation of a non-commercial quantity of a narcotic plant is an indictable offence triable summarily (s 72B DPCSA). A narcotic plant is defined in section 70(1) with reference to schedule 11, part 2. A narcotic plant includes a cutting of a plant, whether or not the cutting has roots. The more commonly known plants are cannabis, the opium poppy and the coca plant.
There is a wide statutory definition of “cultivation” (s 70(1)). To cultivate includes to sow, plant, grow, tend, graft, divide, transplant, nurture or harvest a narcotic plant. A single one of these acts constitutes the offence; for example, to water (nurture) a plant or to harvest one leaf constitutes the act of cultivation for the purposes of the DPCSA.
The penalty for cultivation – where the purpose is related to trafficking – is a fine of not more than 1,800 pu, or imprisonment for a maximum of 15 years (s 72B(b)).
The penalty for the cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant is imprisonment for a maximum of 25 years (s 72A). A fine of up to 3,000 pu may also be imposed. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the quantity of cannabis alleged to have been cultivated, that is, that the accused knew there were 100 or more plants being cultivated (see R v Van Xuan Bui [2005] VSCA 300).
For a large commercial quantity, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of up to 5,000 pu (s 72).
Trafficking is an indictable offence, but it can be tried summarily for amounts under a commercial quantity.
Trafficking at common law means “movement from source to ultimate user in the course of trade” (R v Clarke and Johnstone [1986] VR 643 at 659). It includes selling in the ordinary sense.
Trafficking has elements of movement and commerce (see R v Holman [1982] VR 471, at 475 per Lush J, and compare D’Aloia, Bruno v Brilliant, Peter Alan [1984] VicSC 292).
Extended definition under the DPCSA
Section 70(1) of the DPCSA extends the definition of trafficking to include:
4 agreeing to sell, even though the actual sale does not occur;
5 offering to sell a drug to another, whether or not the offer is accepted or the sale takes place. Even if the substance turns out not to be a drug of dependence on analysis, the mere belief by an accused that they were selling a drug of dependence is sufficient to come within the ambit of “offering to sell” (Gauci v Driscoll [1985] VR 428). The case of Pierce v The Queen [1996] 2 VR 215 extends offering to sell to include a “rip-off”, so that even where there is no proof that there is an intention to complete the offer or that the accused was even in a position to complete such, they may be found guilty of trafficking. In the Pierce case, the court only required proof that the accused intended the offer to sell to be taken seriously;
For trafficking offences of non-commercial quantities heard on indictment, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years, or a fine of up to 1,800 pu, or both (s 71AC DPCSA).
For trafficking to a person under the age of 18 years of age, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years, or a fine of up to 2,400 pu, or both (s 71AB).
Penalties for trafficking commercial quantities are very severe: the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years, or a fine of 3,000 pu, or both (s 71AA).
1 possession (see “Possession”, and note the effect of Momcilovic v The Queen);
Possession is prima facie evidence of trafficking in the way(s) that are consistent in the case. In a case where all the evidence showed that the person in possession had not manufactured the drug, the possession would not be prima facie evidence of trafficking in that way (R v Clarke and Johnstone [1986] VR 643 at 659).
While the Court of Appeal has decided that the relative harmfulness of the particular drug is an irrelevant consideration when determining sentences (R v Pidoto and O’Dea [2006] VSCA 185), the amount of a drug alleged to be possessed or trafficked has a significant impact on the penalty.
The legislation now provides for a distinction to be made between the following quantities: small, traffickable, commercial mixed, commercial pure, large commercial mixed, and large commercial pure. The exact measurements of these quantities for each type of drug is set out in the DPCSA (sch 11). Schedule 11, part 1 contains the list of substances categorised by pure weight. Part 2 lists narcotic plants. Part 3 lists powders in pure and mixed maximum quantities.
A small quantity of fresh or dried cannabis is 50 grams or less. The weight in grams of a small quantity of any drug in powder form is listed in schedule 11, part 3, column 4 of the DPCSA. The quantity includes the weight of any substance with which the drug is mixed.
A traffickable quantity is defined by weight or number of plants (s 70(1)). Applicable amounts are listed in schedule 11, parts 1, 2 and 3, column 3 of the DPCSA.
Drugs in powder form are no longer weighed in pure amounts. The relevant weight is now the weight of the whole mixture, including substances other than the drug. The following table shows the traffickable quantities of common drugs, where the weight is measured in mixed amounts.
mixed amount
Recent amendments to the DPCSA have added synthetic cannabis and other synthetic substances – such as 4-MMC (also known as mephedrone or “meow meow”), BZP, 1,4-BD, GBL and MDPV – to schedule 11. The complete list of drugs and traffickable quantities of drugs weighed in mixed amounts is found in schedule 11, part 3, column 3 of the DPCSA.
The complete list of drugs and traffickable quantities of drugs weighed in pure amounts is found in schedule 11, part 1, column 3 of the DPCSA. Part 2, column 3 lists a traffickable quantity of cannabis as 250 grams or 10 plants.
It is not appropriate to distinguish between that amount of the substance that is usable and that which is unusable (R v Kardogeros, above). In that case, the accused was convicted of having a commercial quantity of cannabis (150 kg) even though 80 kg was allegedly unusable material (e.g. stalks). (See also R v Torrisi [1998] VSCA 21.)
Commercial quantities of some common drugs are shown in the table below. The complete list of commercial quantities is found in schedule 11, parts 1, 2 and 3, column 2, and in part 3, column 2A of the DPCSA.
Trafficking large commercial quantities carry very severe penalties. The complete list of large commercial quantities is found in schedule 11, parts 2 and 3, column 1A of the DPCSA. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of up to 5,000 pu (s 71). Recent Sentencing Act reforms to introduce “baseline sentences” include this offence; the baseline sentence for trafficking large commercial quantities of drugs is 14 years imprisonment.
Aggregated quantities can include a “dilute” drug, that is, a drug contained in or mixed with another substance. Section 70 of the DPCSA explains how the quantity of each substance is made into a fraction and added together.
The following is a brief summary of some other offences under the DPCSA. It is an offence to:
1 introduce a drug into the body of another person (s 74);
aa drug from an authorised person;
ba medical prescription for a drug;
can injection of a drug by a doctor; and
dthe filling of a prescription (s 78);
4 conspire to commit an offence. It is a conspiracy to agree with another person to commit any of the offences in part V of the DPCSA. The offence of conspiracy is completed at the time the agreement is made. If the agreed offence is committed then the conspiracy is regarded as having merged with the agreed offence and the latter only should be charged (s 79);
5 aid, abet, counsel, procure or incite the commission of an offence under part V of the DPCSA. Incitement includes inducement, encouragement and authorisation (s 80);
athe intent to commit the principal offence, and
ban act furthering the intent which is sufficiently close to the offence intended;
7 conspire, aid, abet (etc.) in Victoria to commit any offence outside Victoria, generally speaking (s 80(3));
9 traffick to a child a non-commercial quantity of a drug (s 71AB);
10 supply a drug of dependence to a child. The term “supply” is broad enough to include those circumstances where the drug is simply given to the child or is bought for the child and then given to the child without profit being made. This charge also applies if the supplier is a child. It is a defence if the person supplying the drug to the child believes on reasonable grounds that the child is 18 years of age or more (s 71B);
See the “Maximum penalties for state drug offences” table.
In all drug offences, the prosecution is required to prove the identity of the drug involved (and the quantity of the drug). This is normally done by the production of an analyst’s certificate. Section 120 of the DPCSA provides that an analyst’s or botanist’s certificate as to the identity and quantity of the drug is usually sufficient evidence to prove quantity and identity. (However, if these matters are disputed by the accused, the analyst or botanist will usually be called to give evidence.)
There must be evidence that the material allegedly seized from an accused is the same material in respect of which a certificate of analysis is provided (R v Joseph Daniels (unreported, VSC, Phillips CJ, 11 May 1992)). This requires the prosecution to establish the chain of “continuity”. This is usually done by evidence being given by the various persons who handled the drugs as to who the drugs were passed to.
Section 122A of the DPCSA provides that evidence may be given by persons with certain experience as to the market (or “street”) value of a drug. This evidence will be conclusive unless contrary evidence is provided. The market value of a drug is relevant as it relates to the penalty imposed, and may be indicative of whether or not the accused was trafficking (see R v Tsolacos (1995) 81 A Crim R 434).
Where more than one charge is laid arising out of the same facts, section 51 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) prohibits punishment more than once for the same act or omission. In addition, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled in Reardon v Baker [1987] VR 877 that where a person is found guilty of trafficking because of being in possession of drugs for the purpose of sale, that person should not also be convicted of possession of those drugs; to do otherwise places the person in double jeopardy for what really constitutes one illegal act (see also R v Chhom Nor [2005] VSCA 46).
In situations where the accused may have committed several separate acts (each, by itself, a separate offence), the prosecution may choose to charge one offence to cover all the separate acts. This is known as a “between dates” or “Giretti” count. This is usually the case where the accused trafficks drugs over a period of time, and makes numerous individual sales of the drug. It is appropriate to view this as one continuous offence occurring over a period of time and charge the accused with only one count of trafficking (see Giretti v The Queen (1986) 24 A Crim R 112).
The significant downside of this is that the court will regard the accused as being in the “business of trafficking”, with significant sentencing ramifications. If there are only several separate incidents of trafficking, a Giretti count should not be accepted. This will, however, depend on the particular facts of the case.
The defence of entrapment, as recognised by USA authorities, is not part of the law of Victoria (R v Papoulias [1988] VR 858). In that case the accused was convicted of trafficking heroin on the evidence of undercover police officers, to whom he had sold heroin on a number of different occasions. As section 50 of the DPCSA permits police (provided they have been appropriately authorised) to handle drugs without such handling being an illegal act, there was no basis to exclude the police evidence. (Also see R v Te [1998] 3 VR 566; (1997) 97 A Crim R 386.)
Persons charged with trafficking or cultivation lose the presumption of a right to bail and the burden is on them to show the court that their detention in custody is not justified (s 4(4)(ca) Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (“Bail Act”). In addition, where a person has been charged with trafficking or importing drugs in large amounts as specified in the Bail Act, that person will be refused bail unless “exceptional circumstances” exist to justify the grant of bail (s 4(2)(aa)) (see How bail works).
Participation in the CREDIT/Bail Support Program can assist in satisfying the court that a person is not an unacceptable risk of re-offending because they are willing to address their drug problem. However, formally, a person cannot participate in the CREDIT program unless bail would have been granted anyway. In practice, if the person has already been assessed as suitable for the CREDIT program, this can be a persuasive factor for a court considering an application for bail (see “CREDIT/Bail Support Program”).
A warrant to search premises for drugs or for evidence of the commission of drug offences can be obtained from a magistrate by a member of the police force over a particular rank (s 81 DPCSA). A search warrant directed to a named member of the police force may be executed by any member of the police force (s 81(1AA)). Evidence is required of the grounds for the belief that there are drugs on the premises or that drug offences are being committed. The magistrate must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief before granting the warrant.
Police may search any person or vehicle in a public place if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the presence of drugs. Drugs or devices used in the manufacture, sale or use of any drug may be seized and carried away. Property seized may be subject to forfeiture (s 82 DPCSA). Section 83 deals with forfeiture and the destruction of seized drugs or devices before conviction.
Police have additional powers to search for and seize volatile substances (div 2 pt IV DPCSA). These provisions are intended “to protect the health and welfare of persons under 18 years of age” who are engaged in inhaling volatile substances (commonly known as “chroming”). Police must consider the “best interests” of any person under 18 years of age who is subject to any of these powers (s 60B DPCSA). Significantly, these laws do not make it an offence to possess or inhale volatile substances.
The DPCSA facilitates the on-the-spot search for and surrender of substances and items used for chroming. So, the police may, without warrant, search a person, or search things in that person’s possession or control, for a volatile substance or an item used to inhale a volatile substance (s 60E); such substances and items can be seized by the police.
•under 18 years of age;
•in possession of, or control of, a volatile substance or an item used to inhale a volatile substance; and
•inhaling or going to inhale the substance.
Police do not need to comply with the requirements in sections 60H–I if they believe on reasonable grounds that the person will not understand because of intoxication or because it is otherwise impractical to comply with these requirements.
A person detained under section 60L of the DPCSA must be released immediately if found not to be under 18 years of age, or when police no longer have grounds for believing that person recently inhaled a volatile substance or will cause immediate serious bodily harm to themself or others (s 60M). A detained person must, as soon as practicable, be released into the care of a person who police reasonably believe is suitable to take care of the detained person and who consents to taking care of them (e.g. a parent, guardian or other adult family member, or an employee of an appropriate health or welfare agency). Police have a wide discretion on this point to respond appropriately to a variety of circumstances.
If police have taken reasonable steps to do so but have been unable to release a person into the care of another suitable person, they may continue to detain the person unless grounds for detention no longer exist. A person detained under section 60L of the DPCSA must not be detained in a police jail, cell or lock-up (s 60M(6)). Police may not interview or question a detained person in relation to any known or alleged offence during this detention (s 60M(7)).
Return of property and police recordkeeping
As property may be seized that is not actually prohibited, the DPCSA also makes provision for the return of such property. Police must inform the person from whom property was received or seized that they have the right to have it returned (s 60N). The person from whom the property was seized or received may apply to have the property returned at the relevant police officer’s place of duty within seven days of the receiving or seizure. However, property can only be returned to a person under 18 years of age if accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Police have the power to dispose of or make safe any received or seized property if it is a risk to health or safety (s 60O). Any property not returned within seven days is forfeited to the Crown (s 60P). Police must make a written record, with prescribed particulars, of searches, receipts or seizures of property, apprehensions and detentions, and the disposal or making safe of such property (s 60Q).
(See Which court for which crime?, for an explanation of hearings.)
Most state offences can be heard indictably or summarily, but some can only be heard summarily, and some only indictably.
The DPCSA imposes a complex structure of penalties. The penalty imposed depends on the quantity of the drug, the purpose of possession and the nature of the substance. Penalties also vary according to the jurisdiction in which the offence is tried. The range of penalties for a particular offence can only be determined by carefully examining the DPCSA and other relevant legislation. See the “Maximum penalties for state drug offences” table; it is important to note that the penalties listed in this table are maximum, not mandatory, penalties.
The penalties for indictable offences are listed in the section of the relevant Act that creates the offence. The penalties for indictable offences heard summarily are determined by sections 112A and 113 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (“Sentencing Act”). These provisions respectively limit the penalties that a magistrate may impose for a single offence to a fine of 500 pu and two years imprisonment.
The Sentencing Act provides for, in decreasing order of severity:
•prison sentences;
•drug treatment orders;
•suspended prison sentences;
•detention in a youth training centre (for young people);
•community correction orders (with or without conviction);
•fines (with or without conviction);
•adjourned undertakings – also known as “good behaviour bonds” (with or without conviction); and
•charges proven and dismissed without penalty.
Section 76 DPCSA bonds
For first-time drug offenders charged with the use, possession or cultivation of cannabis, or the use or possession of any drug found in part 3 of schedule 11 (most “street drugs”), there is a presumption in favour of receiving a good behaviour bond under section 76 of the DPCSA. The charge must relate to “small quantities” only (see “Quantities”) for any drug other than cannabis, and the court must be satisfied that the drug was not possessed or cultivated for the purposes of trafficking.
Section 76 still applies if a person has received a caution or, presumably, diversion. Provided the criteria for giving a bond are met, a magistrate must state reasons if they choose not to give a first-time offender (of use, possession or cultivation) a bond. The magistrate must also consider the accused’s character and prior criminal history as well as “all the circumstances” and the “public interest”. A common reason for refusing a bond is that the accused has indicated that they do not intend to stop using cannabis. This is effectively refusing to give an undertaking to be of good behaviour.
The advantages of a bond are that no conviction is recorded and there is no penalty (except perhaps a payment to the Magistrates’ Court fund). Most people would strongly wish to avoid a drug conviction. This is particularly important for those who wish to travel overseas, as any drug-related conviction will make it difficult to enter a number of countries (see Understanding criminal records). Where a section 76 bond is given for an offence involving a drug other than cannabis, the bond must include a condition that the offender undertakes to complete an approved drug education and information program.
Section 76 is additional to the general adjournment without conviction provisions (now in s 75 Sentencing Act) and does not preclude the granting of a bond in situations to which section 76 does not apply, for example, a second offence.
Maximum penalties for state drug offences
A serious drug offender is a person other than a young offender (i.e. under the age of 21 at the time of sentencing) who has been convicted of a drug offence for which they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detention in a youth training centre.
For a person to be described as a “serious drug offender”, they must have committed one of the offences listed in clause 4 of schedule 1 of the Sentencing Act. In addition, the offence must relate to an amount of the drug not less than the commercial quantity where the offence is a DPCSA offence, or a “marketable” or “commercial” quantity where the offence is a Criminal Code offence (see “The Commonwealth Criminal Code”).
In addition, recent amendments to the Sentencing Act mean that suspended sentences are not available to offenders who have committed a “serious offence” or a “significant offence” after 19 April 2011. “Serious” drug offences are defined above. “Significant” drug offences are trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (s 71 DPCSA) or trafficking a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (s 71AA DPCSA).
The Drug Court has a limited number of places and is available only for sentencing matters and only by referral from the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court. The Drug Court supervises some offenders with a drug problem by placing them on an order known as a drug treatment order (DTO) (s 18X Sentencing Act).
The order is designed for people who have committed drug-related offences (other than sexual offences or violent offences that cause injury) and are facing prison sentences. Typically, they will be people who have committed dishonesty offences such as burglary and theft.
If an offender is accepted into the program, a DTO will be made containing a custodial sentence that is not required to be served if various components of the individually tailored treatment program are complied with. Breaches of the order are sanctioned by short periods of imprisonment, with the offender still remaining on the order. The order focuses on drug reduction, lifestyle change and avoidance of offending rather than zero tolerance. However, further offending will likely see a cancellation of the order and the original custodial sentence imposed.
For further information, see “Drug treatment order”, in Sentencing in the Magistrates’ Court; contact the Drug Court (tel: 9767 1344); or go to the Magistrates’ Court website at www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au.