Previous Topic

Next Topic

Book Contents

Book Index

9.1.2 – Importing/Exporting Border Controlled Drugs and Plants

Click here to obtain a Word version of this document

Import-Export Offence Overview

  1. Division 307 of the Criminal Code establishes four subdivisions related to import-export of border controlled drugs, plants and precursors:
  2. This topic only considers the operation of Subdivision A.
  3. For information on trafficking offences under the Criminal Code see Trafficking Controlled Drugs.
  4. Unless stated otherwise, all references to sections are to the Criminal Code.
  5. Import-export offences also exist under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). These offences are not covered in this chapter.

    Commencement Information and Amendments

  6. Division 307 was inserted into the Criminal Code by the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act 2005 (Cth). The division commenced operation 6 December 2005.
  7. On 20 February 2010, the definition of ‘import’ was broadened to include dealing with the substance in connection with its importation as well as bringing the substance into Australia (Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No. 2) 2010 (Cth) s 9 sch 9 item 1).
  8. Commencing 28 May 2013, the words ‘other than a determined border controlled drug or determined border controlled plant’ were added to the substance requirement for the import/export offence with no defence of lack of commercial intent (see s 307.4; Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3 sch 1 item 17; see also below [41]-[43]).

    Importing and exporting commercial quantities of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants

    Overview of offences

  9. Subdivision A of Division 307 of the Criminal Code establishes four import-export offences.
  10. Any reference to Subdivision A is to Criminal Code Division 307, Subdivision A.

    Overview of elements

  11. The following must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for all offences in subdivision A:
  12. Where the accused has been charged with one of the aggravated offences, the prosecution must also prove that:
  13. Absolute liability applies to these quantity requirements (ss 307.1(3), 307.2(3)). Unlike for trafficking offences, there is no partial defence where the accused is mistaken regarding the identity or quantity of a drug (Compare Trafficking Controlled Drugs, [92]-[97]).
  14. In Smith & Afford v R (2017) 259 CLR 291 at [69], the High Court set out twelve points of guidance for directions on this offence. However, the High Court did not refer to the impact of Jury Directions Act 2015 s61, and so judges should consider whether that section requires any modification to point (7) of that guidance.

    The person imports or exports a substance

  15. The first element requires the prosecution to prove that the accused either ‘imported’ a substance or ‘exported’ a substance.

    A. Import

  16. To ‘import’ a substance includes:
    1. bringing the substance into Australia; and
    2. dealing with the substance in connection with its importation (s 300.2).
  17. This definition may be viewed as creating a ‘primary’ and ‘extended’ definition of ‘import’ (see R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 20, [50]). For offences committed before 20 February 2010, the definition of import is restricted to the primary definition of bringing the substance into Australia (see Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No. 2) 2010 (Cth)).
  18. Under the primary definition, a person imports a substance when the substance arrives in Australia and is delivered to a point where it will remain in Australia (Campbell v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 272; R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; R v Toe (2010) 106 SASR 203).
  19. This primary definition is limited to the arrival of the goods, and not their subsequent distribution or use (Campbell v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 272).
  20. Where the substance is fully substituted by police, the process of bringing the substance into Australia for the purpose of the primary definition is at an end. An accused cannot be charged on the basis of his or her conduct which post-dates the time when the substance was imported (Campbell v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 272, R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; R v Toe (2010) 106 SASR 203).
  21. Under the extended definition, the act of importing refers to a process of importation, rather than a specific finite act. This aspect of the definition of import is further expanded by the inclusion of the words ‘in connection with’. Therefore, the extended definition will cover a broad spectrum of conduct occurring both before and after the time a substance has strictly been ‘imported’ (Brar v R [2016] VSCA 281 at [47]-[49]; compare Campbell v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 272).
  22. The following activities are now likely covered by the extended definition, but would not fall under the primary definition:
    1. packaging the goods for importation into Australia;
    2. transporting the goods into Australia;
    3. recovering the imported goods after landing in Australia;
    4. making the imported goods available to another person;
    5. clearing the imported goods;
    6. transferring the imported goods into storage;
    7. unpacking the imported goods;
    8. arranging for payment of those involved in the importation process (see Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2010 (Cth); R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452).
  23. The extended definition of import in section 300.2 can be broken into two requirements:
    1. the accused must deal with the substance; and
    2. the dealings with the substance must be in connection with its importation (R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452).
  24. Provided the dealing is in connection with the importation, it does not matter whether the dealings occur before, during or after importation (R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452).
  25. The first requirement is that the accused must have dealt with the substance. While the terms ‘deal’ and ‘in connection with’ are not defined in the Criminal Code, they are words of relatively wide meaning (R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; Brar v R [2016] VSCA 281 at [47]-[49]).
  26. The second requirement is that the accused’s dealings are ‘in connection’ with the importation. This is a term of wide meaning which may refer to conduct that occurs before the importation, during the importation or after the importation has concluded. However, there will come a point at which the alleged dealing is so far removed from the actual importation that it is no longer ‘in connection with’ the importation. In determining whether this point is reached, the court or jury will consider matters such as time, geography and other like matters (R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; Brar v R [2016] VSCA 281 at [49]).
  27. Whether conduct is in connection with an importation is a question of fact for the jury in each case (Brar v R [2016] VSCA 281 at [59]).
  28. The answer to whether conduct is in connection with an importation is not assisted by considering whether the dealing took place before, or in connection with, the arrival of the substance at its ‘final destination’ in Australia. Such a consideration is a distraction from the statutory test and risks the wrong application of that test (Brar v R [2016] VSCA 281 at [50]).
  29. Where the substance is fully substituted before the accused has dealt with it, he or she cannot be convicted of importing the substance, though he or she may be guilty of attempting to import. This is because the accused will only ‘deal with’ the innocuous substitute, rather than with the border-controlled drug (R v Tranter (2013) 116 SASR 452; R v Nolan (2012) 83 NSWLR 534).

    B. Export

  30. To ‘export’ includes to take from Australia (s 300.2).
  31. Unlike the definition of import, the definition of ‘export’ does not include an extended meaning of dealing with a substance in connection with its exportation.
  32. The focus on the definition is likely to be on when the substance leaves Australian territory, rather than when it arrives at its final destination (see R v Campbell (2008) 73 NSWLR 272; [2008] NSWCCA 214).
  33. The jury must therefore focus on the accused’s conduct in taking the substance from Australia. Controlled interception which takes place before the goods are removed from Australia may therefore prevent the offence being completed. In such cases, a charge of attempting to export may be appropriate (see R v Campbell (2008) 73 NSWLR 272).

    The person intended to import or export the substance

  34. The prosecution must also prove that the accused intended to import or export the substance (s 5.6; see also R v Campbell (2008) 73 NSWLR 272).
  35. A person intends to engage in conduct if he or she means to engage in conduct (s 5.2).
  36. Therefore, the prosecution must prove the accused:
    1. meant to import the substance; or
    2. meant to export the substance.
  37. At common law, it was appropriate to direct the jury that it could infer an intention to import narcotic drugs from finding that the accused held a belief, falling short of actual knowledge, that a package contained narcotic drugs. Similarly, a jury could infer intention from satisfaction that the accused was aware of the likelihood of the existence of the substance and the likelihood that it was a narcotic drug (Kural v R (1987) 162 CLR 502). This path of reasoning has been called ‘Kural reasoning’.
  38. Kural reasoning remains available for this element (Smith & Afford v R (2017) 259 CLR 291 at [57]-[61]).
  39. As the majority in Smith & Afford v R (2017) 259 CLR 291 stated at [60]:

    where it is established in cases like this that an accused perceived there to be a real or significant chance of a substance being present in an object which the accused brought into Australia, it is open to infer on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused intended to import the substance.

  40. To use Kural reasoning in relation to this element, it is not necessary to show that the accused knew or believed:
  41. When directing the jury about Kural reasoning, the judge must make clear that:
  42. The interaction between this element and the fourth element of recklessness as to importing or exporting a border controlled drug can be complex.
  43. This element does not look at whether the accused was aware that the substance was a border controlled drug or border controlled plant. All that is required to establish the intention is proof the accused intended to import or export a package, whatever it contained (see Campbell v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 272).
  44. However, where the substance is concealed within a larger package (either in a hidden compartment, or through seemingly innocuous wrapping), an intention to import the larger package is not sufficient. Instead, the accused must have intended to import the concealed substance. This may be inferred from evidence that the accused knew or believed there was a real or significant chance that there was a concealed substance in the larger package, and failed to take steps to inspect the package or declare those concerns to Customs officials (see Smith & Afford v The Queen (2017) 259 CLR 291, [58]-[59], [63]).

    The substance is a border controlled drug or border controlled plant

  45. Each offence under Subdivision A requires the accused to have imported or exported a ‘border controlled drug’ or ‘border controlled plant’. These terms are defined exhaustively in ss 301.4 and 301.5 (s 300.2).
  46. A border controlled plant is a growing plant which is either:
    1. listed by a regulation as a border controlled plant; or
    2. determined by the Minister as a border controlled plant under section 301.13 (s 301.5).
  47. A border controlled drug is a substance (other than a growing plant) which is either:
    1. listed by a regulation as a border controlled drug
    2. a drug analogue of a listed border controlled drug
    3. determined by the Minister as a border controlled drug under s 301.13 (s 301.4).

    A. Listed by a regulation as a border controlled drug or border controlled plant

  48. Listed border controlled drugs and plants are those drugs and plants listed by a regulation made for the purposes of ss 301.4(1)(a) or 301.5(1)(a) (s 300.2).
  49. The current listed border controlled drugs are found in the Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) Schedule 4 column 1 (Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) reg 5D).
  50. The current listed border controlled plants are found in the Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) reg 5E (Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) reg 5E(1)).

    B. Determined by the Minister as a border controlled drug or border controlled plant

  51. The Minister may determine that a substance is a border controlled drug or border controlled plant via an Emergency Determination (ss 301.13(1)(a), (b)).1 The Minister is not permitted to make more than one determination under this section in relation to a particular substance (s 301.13(3)).
  52. A determination under s 301.13 operates from the time it is registered for a period of 12 months (or such shorter period specified in the determination) (s 301.16(1)).
  53. Where the accused is charged under s 307.4 with importing or exporting a border controlled drug without commercial intent, the border controlled drug or plant must be either a listed drug or plant or a drug analogue of a listed drug and not a determined border control drug or determined border controlled plant (see the definition in s 300.2).

    C. A drug analogue of a listed border controlled drug

  54. The definition of ‘drug analogue’ in the Criminal Code sets out ways in which a substance can be related to a listed border controlled drug or a ‘primary analogue’ of the listed border controlled drug (see s 301.9(1)). These conditions relate to similarities in the chemical structure between a substance and a listed controlled drug.
  55. If one of the chemical relationships defined in s 301.9(1) exists, then the substance is a drug analogue of a listed border controlled drug. A substance cannot be a ‘drug analogue’ if it is already a listed controlled drug (s 301.9(2)).
  56. Section 301.9(1)(d) specifies that a drug is an analogue of a listed controlled drug or a listed border controlled drug if it is “any other homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or substance substantially similar in chemical structure”. The words “substantially similar in chemical structure” qualify all previous terms (homologue, analogue and chemical derivative) and are not limited to the immediately preceding word “substance” (R v AL [2016] VSCA 156 at [26]-[29]).
  57. Whether one drug is a chemical derivative of a listed drug is a question of fact for the jury. It will require expert evidence which will examine matters such as whether one drug can be made from another and whether one drug is structurally related to another (see Daley v Tasmania (2012) 21 Tas R 247; Clegg v Western Australia (No 2) [2017] WASCA 30).

    The person was reckless as to the substance being a border controlled drug or border controlled plant

  58. The prosecution must prove that the accused was reckless as to the substance being a border controlled drug or border controlled plant (ss 307.1(2), s 307.2(2), s 307.3(2) and 307.4(2)).
  59. A person is reckless as to the imported or exported substance being a border controlled drug or border controlled plant if:
    1. He or she is aware of a substantial risk that the substance is a border controlled drug or border controlled plant; and
    2. Having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk (s 5.4(1)).
  60. A person is also reckless as to the substance being a border controlled drug or border controlled plant if:
  61. The jury must determine whether it is unjustifiable to take a risk on the facts known to the accused (s 5.4(1)(b)). However, the accused does not need to have believed that it was unjustifiable to take the risk. The test is objective not subjective.
  62. The question of whether a risk is unjustifiable requires the jury to make a moral or value judgment relating to the accused’s advertent disregard of risk (R v Saengsai-Or (2004) 61 NSWLR 135).
  63. The jury must assess the likelihood of the risk eventuating, and determine whether the risk is one that should not have been taken (Lustig v R (2009) 195 A Crim R 310).
  64. This element can be proved where the accused was aware that there was a substantial risk that the substance was one kind of border controlled drug or border controlled plant but was in fact a different border controlled drug or border controlled plant. The prosecution does not need to prove that the person was reckless as to the particular identity of the border controlled drug or border controlled plant imported as opposed to the substance being a border controlled drug or border controlled plant (s 300.5; see, eg, R v Hill (2011) 212 A Crim R 359; Weng v R (2013) 279 FLR 119).
  65. While courts have not directly addressed the issue, the better view appears to be that this element only requires that the accused was reckless as to the identity of the substance in question and the prosecution does not need to prove that the accused was reckless as to its status as a proscribed substance. However, given the lack of caselaw on this point, judges should seek submissions from parties in cases where this issue is relevant.
  66. The partial defence of mistake as to identity of drug, plant or precursor under s 313.5 does not apply to offences under Division 307 (compare Trafficking Controlled Drugs, [92]-[97]).
  67. Where the accused is charged with attempting to import or export a border controlled drug or plant, recklessness remains the fault element associated with proof that the substance is a controlled drug or plant. This is an exception to the general rule for attempt charges that the fault element for all physical elements is intention or knowledge (s 300.6; c.f. s 11.1).

    Commercial/marketable quantity

  68. Where a person is charged under s 307.1 or 307.2 with importing or exporting a commercial or marketable quantity, the prosecution must prove that the quantity imported or exported was commercial or marketable (ss 307.1(1)(c), 307.2(1)(c)).
  69. For border controlled plants and border controlled drugs other than a drug analogue, a commercial or marketable quantity is the lesser of:
    1. The quantity listed in a regulation as a commercial or marketable quantity for these offences (ss 301.10 item 1(a), 301.11 item 1(a)). For the current list see Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) s 5E(1) (for plants) and Schedule 3 (for drugs) (Criminal Code Regulations s 5D, 5E); and2
    2. The quantity determined by the Minister under an Emergency Determination in s 301.15 as a commercial or marketable quantity (ss 301.10 item 1(b), 301.11 item 1(b)). Such a determination can only be made if there is no quantity regulation already in force (s 301.15(2)).
  70. A commercial or marketable quantity of a drug analogue of a border controlled drug is the commercial or marketable quantity of the listed border controlled drug of which it is an analogue (ss 301.10 item 3(a), 301.11 item 3(a)). If the substance is a drug analogue for two or more listed border controlled drugs, a commercial or marketable quantity is the smallest commercial or marketable quantity of the listed border controlled drugs of which it is an analogue (ss 301.10 item 3(b), 301.11 item 3(b)).
  71. The amounts listed in the Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) are based on the pure amount of the drug (Weng v R (2013) 279 FLR 119; R v King [1979] VR 399; see also s 312.1(1)(a)).
  72. For guidance as to how to determine quantity in specific circumstances, see Provisions Relevant to Determining Quantity, [61]-[81] below.

    Absolute liability as to quantity

  73. Absolute liability applies to the quantity requirements. This means that there is no associated fault element (ss 307.1(3), 307.2(3), 307.3(3)).

    Provisions relevant to determining quantity

  74. The following provisions may be relevant in determining if the quantity requirements are satisfied:

    A. Combining quantities of plants or drugs

  75. If on a single occasion, a person imports or exports several parcels of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants, the person may be charged with a single offence against Part 9.1 in respect of all or any of those different parcels (s 311.1(1)(f)).
  76. The quantity of drugs is the sum of the quantities of drugs in the several parcels (s 311.1(2)).
  77. Where different kinds of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants are involved see [78]-[81] below.
  78. Despite this method of aggregation, a person may still be charged with separate offences in respect of several parcels of drugs, plants or precursors imported or exported on a single occasion (s 311.1(4)).

    B. Combining quantities from multiple offences

  79. Under s 311.13, the prosecution can aggregate the quantities imported or exported from multiple occasions into a single offence if the prosecution can prove that:
    1. The defendant committed several offences against Subdivision A on different occasions;
    2. Each offence was committed within 30 days from another offence; and
    3. In total, the relevant quantity of a border controlled drug or border controlled plant or both, or of a combination of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants or both, was imported or exported during the commission of the offences (s 311.13)
  80. This provides a means for the prosecution to prove that the accused imported or exported a commercial or marketable quantity on the basis of a series of offences, each of which was less than the relevant threshold quantity.
  81. The following general rules apply to combining parcels from multiple offences:
  82. Where different kinds of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants are involved see [78]-[81] below (s 311.13 note 1).

    C. Combining quantities based on a business of importing or exporting border controlled drugs or border controlled plants

  83. A commercial or marketable quantity can be made out if the prosecution proves:
    1. The defendant was engaged in an organised commercial activity that involved repeated importing or exporting of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants, or both; and
    2. The relevant quantity of border controlled drug or border controlled plant or both, or a combination of border controlled drugs or border controlled plants or both, was imported or exported in the course of that activity (s 311.4(1)).
  84. The phrase "organised commercial activity", which is used in s 311.4, is not defined in the Code.
  85. The prosecution does not need to specify the exact dates of each occasion or the exact quantity imported or exported on each occasion (s 311.4(2)).
  86. This provision provides a more flexible basis than s 311.13 for aggregating quantities over a prolonged process of importing or exporting, where it is conducted as a business.
  87. For a comparison between establishing quantity under a similar provision of the Criminal Code and Giretti Trafficking see Trafficking Controlled Drugs, [70], [77].
  88. See also Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence for discussion of what constitutes a ‘business’ as it relates to Giretti Trafficking. These concepts are potentially transferrable to this provision.
  89. Where different kinds of controlled drug are imported, see [76]-[80] below (s 311.4 Note 1).

    D. Calculating quantities of drugs in mixtures

  90. When a border controlled drug is within a mixture, the prosecution must prove that the mixture contains the relevant quantity of the border controlled drug in pure form (s 312.1(3)(a)).3

    E. Calculating quantities where different kinds of substances are involved

  91. If the accused is charged with a single offence involving importing or exporting more than one kind of border controlled drug or border controlled plant, then the quantity imported or exported is a marketable or commercial quantity if the sum of the requisite fractions of the marketable or commercial quantity of each of those drugs or plants is equal to or greater than one (s 312.2(2)).
  92. The ‘requisite fraction’ is determined by dividing the actual quantity of the substance by the smallest marketable or commercial quantity of that substance (s 312.2(3)).
  93. For example, where a person is accused of importing 9.5kg of Opium and 3kg of Oxycodone, the Code Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) Schedule 4 column 2 items 165 and 168 provide that:

    Therefore:

  94. When a border controlled drug is within a mixture of substances, the requisite fraction is calculated on the basis of the quantity of the controlled drug in pure form (s 312.2(5)(a)).4

    Defences and alternative verdicts

  95. The following defences/alternative verdicts apply to Division 307:
    1. Lack of commercial intent (ss 307.2(4), 307.3(3));
    2. Reasonable belief that conduct was excused by or under state law (s 313.2);
    3. Proof of alternative offence (s 313.3).
  96. The other defences and alternative verdicts under Division 313 are not applicable to Division 307 (compare Trafficking Controlled Drugs).

    A. Lack of Commercial Intent

  97. Where the accused is charged with importing or exporting a marketable quantity, or importing or exporting a border controlled drug or plant, the accused has a defence where he or she proves that he or she neither intended, nor believed that another person intended, to sell any of the border controlled drug or border controlled plant or its products (ss 307.2(4), 307.4(3)).
  98. ‘Sell’ is defined as including:
    1. Barter and exchange
    2. Agree to sell (s 300.2

    See Trafficking Controlled Drugs, [15]-[19] for more detail on the definition of ‘sell’.

  99. The defendant bears the legal burden of proving a lack of commercial intent on the balance of probabilities (ss 13.4, 13.5).
  100. Where the accused proves the defence of lack of commercial intent, the prosecution may seek to rely on the offence under s307.4, where the defence of lack of commercial intent does not apply, as a factual alternative (s 307.4).
  101. The lack of commercial intent defence is not available for the offence of importing or exporting a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug or a border controlled plant (s 307.1).
  102. Determined border controlled drugs or determined border controlled plants are explicitly excluded from the operation the import-export offence with no defence of lack of commercial intent (s 307.4(1)(b)). Therefore, no offence under Subdivision A has been committed where:

    However, the accused may still be liable for a possession offence under Subdivision B or Subdivision C of Division 307 (Weng v R (2013) 279 FLR 119).

    B. Reasonable Belief that Conduct was Excused by or Under Commonwealth, State or Territory Law

  103. No criminal responsibility exists if:
    1. At the time of the conduct constituting the offence, the person was under a mistaken but reasonable belief that the conduct was justified or excused by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and
    2. Had the conduct been so justified or excused – the conduct would not have constituted the offence (s 313.2).
  104. This defence provides an exception to the general rule under the Criminal Code that a person can still be criminally responsibility for an offence even if he or she is mistaken about or ignorant of the law (s 9.3).
  105. While there is no case law on the operation of this defence, it appears designed to cover those situations where a person mistakenly believed that they held a valid licence or other authorisation to deal with the border controlled substance (See Explanatory Memoranda, Law Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act (Cth) 2005).
  106. The defendant bears the evidential burden of proof in relation to this defence (s 13.3(3); the note in s 313.2). To satisfy this burden, the defendant must adduce or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that they had a reasonable belief the conduct was justified (s 13.3(6)).
  107. The defence under s 313.1 - which absolves the accused of liability where the conduct occurs in a state or territory and the conduct is justified or excused by or under a law of a State or Territory – does not apply to Division 307 offences (compare Division 302 trafficking offences – see Trafficking Controlled Drugs, [85]-[86]).
  108. However, the general defence under s 10.5 does apply to Division 307. This general defence operates so that a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the conduct constituting the offence is justified or excused by or under a law of the Commonwealth (see s 10.5).

    C. Proof of Alternative Offence

  109. If the jury is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the alleged offence but is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of another offence against Part 9.1, they may find the defendant not guilty of the alleged offence but guilty of the other offence (s 313.3).
  110. The maximum penalty of the ‘other offence’ must not be greater than the maximum penalty for the alleged offence and the defendant must have been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt (s 313.3).

[1] This system of emergency determination replaces the previous system of listing substances as border controlled drugs or plants temporarily through interim regulations (which were for a maximum period 12 months) or urgently through emergency determinations (which for a maximum period of 56 days). These changes came into force 28 May 2013 under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3 sch 1 item 16.

[2] In the past, a listing of commercial quantities of controlled drugs was found in s 314.1 of division 314 to the Criminal Code. This division has now been repealed, effective 28 May 2013.

[3] Section 312.1(1)(b) purports to provide another means by which the prosecution can prove the quantity requirement, however it refers to division 314 which is now repealed (effective 28 May 2013).

[4] Section 312.2(5)(b) purports to provide another means by which the requisite fraction can be calculated, however it refers to division 314 which is now repealed (effective 28 May 2013).

Last updated: 13 March 2020

In This Chapter

9.1.2.1 – Charge: Importing/Exporting Marketable or Commercial Quantities of Border Controlled Drugs and Border Controlled Plants

9.1.2.2 – Checklist: Importing Marketable or Commercial Quantities of Border Controlled Drugs

9.1.2.3 - Charge: Importing/Exporting Border Controlled Drugs and Border Controlled Plants

9.1.2.4 – Checklist: Importing Border Controlled Drugs