The Law Handbook 2024

Chapter 3.2: Drug offences 139 Other state offences The following is a brief summary of some other offences under the DPCS Act. It is an offence to: 1 introduce a drug into another person’s body (s 74); 2 forge a prescription for a drug (s 77); 3 make a false representation to obtain: a a drug from an authorised person; b a medical prescription for a drug; c an injection of a drug by a doctor; and d the 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 DPCS Act. 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 DPCS Act. Incitement includes inducement, encouragement and authorisation (s 80); 6 attempt to commit the offences in sections 71–75, 77, 78. An attempt to commit an offence carries the same penalty as the principal offence, and generally requires: a the intent to commit the principal offence, and b an act furthering the intent that is sufficiently close to the offence intended; 7 conspire, aid, abet (etc.) in Victoria to commit any offence outside Victoria (s 80(3)); 8 do a preparatory act in Victoria for the com- mission of an offence outside Victoria (s 80(4)); 9 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(1)); 10 possess a substance or material, or documents or equipment for trafficking a drug of dependence. This includes documents relating to the prep- aration, cultivation or manufacture of a drug. However, for a person to be found guilty of the offence, it must be proven that they possessed the relevant item with the intention of ultimately trafficking the drug. This offence is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment (s 71A); 11 possess a tablet press without lawful excuse. This is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to 600 pu, or both (s 71C); and 12 possess a prescribed precursor chemical in a quantity that is not less than the prescribed quantity applicable to that precursor chemical. This is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to 600 pu, or both (s 71D). See the ‘Maximum penalties for state (Victorian) drug offences’ table, below. General issues about state drug offences Certificate of analysis In all drug offences, the prosecution is required to prove the identity and quantity of the drug involved. This is normally done by the production of an analyst’s certificate. The DPCS Act (s 120) provides that an analyst’s or botanist’s certificate as to the identity and quantity of a 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.) The certificate must be served on the accused personally at least seven days before the court hearing, or filed with the court not less than 10 days before the hearing. If the accused objects to the certificate and wishes the analyst or botanist to give evidence, notice must be given at least three days before the hearing to the informant and the analyst or botanist (s 120 DPCS Act). The certificate of analysis is not evidence of the identity and quantity of the drug if it has not been served on the accused or filed with the court within the requisite time, or once the accused has given the appropriate notice for the attendance of the analyst or botanist (s 120(2) DPCS Act). There must be evidence that the material allegedly seized from an accused is the same material that was analysed for the certificate provided (see R v Joseph Daniels (unreported, VSC, Phillips CJ, 11 May 1992)). This requires the prosecution to establish the chain