Ratcliff, Lillian v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 259

Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RATCLIFF, Lillian v R [2013] NSWCCA 259
Hearing dates:25 - 26 March 2013
Decision date: 12 November 2013
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Beazley P at [5]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [6]; Blanch J at [7]; Price J at [8]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to certificate under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - motion that indictment be quashed based on inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws dismissed.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - whether there is inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws - whether s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) is inconsistent with Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Pt 9.1
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Lillian Ratcliff (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Attorney General of NSW (Intervening)
Representation: Counsel:
A Healey (Appellant)
M Cinque (Respondent)
M G Sexton SC and G Wright on behalf of the Attorney General
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Ltd (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):2009/268587
Publication restriction:No
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9101
Date of Decision:
2010-11-09 00:00:00
Before:
Freeman DCJ
File Number(s):
2009/268587

Judgment

  1. BATHURST CJ: Ms Lillian Ratcliff (the appellant) was charged with two counts of supply of a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (Drug Act). Along with Ms Kerry Ann Buckman, whose appeal was heard simultaneously with this appeal, the appellant argued that s 25(1) of the Drug Act was invalid as being inconsistent with Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

  1. Freeman DCJ dismissed the appellant's motion to quash the indictment on this ground but granted the appellant a certificate under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to appeal to this Court.

  1. The appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal of Ms Buckman and each of the appellant and Ms Buckman adopted the other's submissions. I have set out the legislative framework and summarised the submissions in my judgment in respect of the appeal of Ms Buckman. It is unnecessary to repeat what I have said there.

  1. For the reasons I have given in my judgment in respect of Ms Buckman's appeal, I am of the view there is no inconsistency between s 25(1) of the Drug Act and Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth). It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.

  1. BEAZLEY P: I agree with the reasons and with the orders proposed by Bathurst CJ.

  1. HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Bathurst CJ.

  1. BLANCH J: I agree that for the reasons given by the Chief Justice the appeal should be dismissed.

  1. PRICE J: I agree with Bathurst CJ.

**********

Details
AGLC
Ratcliff, Lillian v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 259
Case
[2013] NSWCCA 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Lillian Ratcliff sought to quash her indictment on the basis that there was an inconsistency between state and Commonwealth laws. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Ratcliff argued that section 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) was inconsistent with Part 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Ratcliff contended that the state law allowed for the use of drug detection dogs in a manner that contravened the Commonwealth's provisions, which imposed stricter limitations on the use of such dogs.

The court was required to determine whether there was indeed an inconsistency between the state and Commonwealth laws as argued by Ratcliff. The court also needed to decide if the alleged inconsistency was of such a nature that it would render the state law inoperative under section 109 of the Constitution. The central issue was whether the state law permitted practices that were forbidden by the Commonwealth law, thereby creating a conflict that could not be resolved by concurrent operation.

The court found that there was no inconsistency between the state and Commonwealth laws. It held that the state law did not permit practices that were forbidden by the Commonwealth law. The court reasoned that while both laws had different provisions, they could operate concurrently without rendering the state law inoperative. The court concluded that the state law allowed for the use of drug detection dogs in a manner consistent with the Commonwealth provisions, thus there was no inconsistency that would necessitate the quashing of Ratcliff's indictment.

The High Court dismissed Ratcliff's motion that her indictment be quashed. The court's decision was that there was no inconsistency between the state and Commonwealth laws, and therefore the motion was without merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HOEBEN CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HOEBEN CJ

Full text does not contain this section.