Maroney v The Queen [2003] HCA 63

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, KIRBY, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

PAUL STEVEN MARONEY APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Maroney v The Queen

[2003] HCA 63

11 November 2003

B101/2002

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation:

P J Callaghan for the appellant (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

L J Clare with S G Bain for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Maroney v The Queen

Criminal Law – Supply of dangerous drug – Counselling – Procuring – Where appellant was inmate at correctional facility and arranged for person outside facility to supply him with heroin – Whether criminally liable for the offence of supplying a dangerous drug within Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Q), s 4 and Criminal Code (Q), s 7.

Statutes – Construction of statutes – Intersecting statutes of general and particular application – Criminal law – Whether provision enacting substantive offence is incompatible with deeming provision in statute of general application – Provisions for primary and secondary liability for criminal offences – Application of deeming provisions – Approach to statutory intersection – Whether history and suggested policy of the substantive legislation relevant to resolution of the intersection – Whether context determinative of contested statutory construction.

Words and Phrases: "deemed supply", "supplies a dangerous drug to another".

Criminal Code (Q), s 7.

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Q), ss 4 and 6.

1. GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ. The appellant was convicted by a jury after a trial presided over by Chesterman J in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The count on which he was convicted was that he, Nadene Rae Miller and Leslie Anthony Watson "being adults unlawfully supplied a dangerous drug heroin to another who was within a correctional institution". There were similar counts against Miller and Watson. Like the appellant, Watson was convicted, and Miller pleaded guilty. 2. The appellant was an inmate at a gaol. The jury verdict is inconsistent with any conclusion other than that in the course of telephone conversations with Watson the appellant arranged for Watson to supply Miller with heroin with a view to Miller on-supplying it to the appellant in gaol. Watson did supply Miller. However, before Miller effected any on-supply, she discarded a packet containing two syringes, a balloon and the heroin in question, which weighed 0.084 grams. 3. The count on which the appellant was convicted charged him with an offence of "aggravated supply" contrary to s 6 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Q) ("the Act"). Section 6 relevantly provided: