Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Barber v R [2025] NSWCCA 179
In this judgment the CCA has determined that, where an accused accrues an onus of proof to establish that the drugs in their possession was not for the purpose of supply, they must establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the whole of that portion in their possession was for a purpose other
Salameh v R [2024] NSWCCA 239
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) sat a full bench in this case in order to set the record straight on the mental element in drug supply matters. They held that the prosecution is not required to prove that the accused knew the identity of the actual drug. All that is required is that the prosecu
Rabieh v R [2024] NSWCCA 154
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered what the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 means when it talks about ‘knowingly taking part’ in the supply of a prohibited drug. In particular, the Court has examined the inscrutable phrase ‘suffers or permits’ in the definition
R v Narouz [2024] NSWCCA 14
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the offence of driving with illicit drug in oral fluid is an offence of absolute liability, so that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available.
Bott v R [2023] NSWCCA 255
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that, just because there is no hierarchy of the harm caused by drugs does not mean that there is no value in comparing drugs against one another in terms of their expected value, provided there is evidence to support that proposition.
Fear v R [2023] NSWCCA 238
This decision serves as an important reminder that there is a difference in the definition – and therefore the offence – that applies for supply of cannabis leaf, versus supply of cannabis plants.
Kennedy v R [2020] NSWCCA 49
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has examined the sentencing range for ongoing supply – which is due to become a Table 1 offence soon – and held that at least in the circumstances of this case, no penalty other than a conviction was necessary.
Cashel v R [2018] NSWCCA 292
How far do you have to go before you can be found guilty of ‘manufacturing’ a drug? The CCA has determined that, in order to be convicted of manufacturing a prohibited drug a person must have actually produced the drug.
R v Busby [2018] NSWCCA 136
In a decision that has potentially wide-reaching ramifications for drug supply matters, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has found that the relevant quantity level for a prohibited drug (‘small’, ‘traffickable’, ‘indictable’, ‘commercial’, ‘large commercial’) must be for the drug that the accuse
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has revisited longstanding principles in sentencing drug offenders. Subject to some qualifications, it appears that all sentencing options need to be considered in all cases, rather than applying a judicially-created rule – however longstanding it might be.