Legal Liability On Drug Smuggling

[The_Moog]

Fellow members of the Legal team (TV branch).....

Is it true to say that if you get caught with drugs in an airport, isn't it the mere prima facie fact that you are in possession of the banned substances that is what nails you.

So to argue that you yourself didn't put it there, ...is irrelevant - your offence is being in possession, irrespective of whether you put it there or whether it was dropped into your bag by an over-flying parakeet.

This topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

[Jai Dee]

topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

[Darknight]

the parakeet did it, ... i swear.....

[gburns57au]

Fellow members of the Legal team (TV branch).....

Is it true to say that if you get caught with drugs in an airport, isn't it the mere prima facie fact that you are in possession of the banned substances that is what nails you.

So to argue that you yourself didn't put it there, ...is irrelevant - your offence is being in possession, irrespective of whether you put it there or whether it was dropped into your bag by an over-flying parakeet.

This topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

Apparently so.....In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

[The_Moog]

In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

Well that would be fine and dandy - if the Appeal was being heard in Australia !

Another query then about Aussie Law, .......if you're found at Customs in possession of say......a banana, or a donut.

They go bonkers about bringing food in Australia.

.... do they have to make that similar proof, that you knew you were in operational control of the cake. Or could you evade a fine by saying that it was accidental?

[Boatabike]

Don't do it moog why risk years of incarceration just to smuggle decent food into Aus? it aint worth it honest!

[bino]

Fellow members of the Legal team (TV branch).....

Is it true to say that if you get caught with drugs in an airport, isn't it the mere prima facie fact that you are in possession of the banned substances that is what nails you.

So to argue that you yourself didn't put it there, ...is irrelevant - your offence is being in possession, irrespective of whether you put it there or whether it was dropped into your bag by an over-flying parakeet.

This topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

Apparently so.....In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

I was always told by the lawyer in my family (my mum) that posession is nine tenths of the law.

What is the other ten percent? Sounds like reasonable doubt to me!

Edited June 4, 2005 by bino

[The_Moog]

I guess the standard questions, (which no doubt are on the ticket terms somewhere)

Did you pack your bag yourself?

Has it been out of your possession?

Are all phrased and structured in such a way as to nail you.....in the event of an....

'oh that? thats not mine'

[daleyboy]

In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

Well that would be fine and dandy - if the Appeal was being heard in Australia !

Another query then about Aussie Law, .......if you're found at Customs in possession of say......a banana, or a donut.

They go bonkers about bringing food in Australia.

.... do they have to make that similar proof, that you knew you were in operational control of the cake. Or could you evade a fine by saying that it was accidental?

Just drop the cake moog, step away from it and put your hands on your head.

[meom]

Fellow members of the Legal team (TV branch).....

Is it true to say that if you get caught with drugs in an airport, isn't it the mere prima facie fact that you are in possession of the banned substances that is what nails you.

So to argue that you yourself didn't put it there, ...is irrelevant - your offence is being in possession, irrespective of whether you put it there or whether it was dropped into your bag by an over-flying parakeet.

This topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

Apparently so.....In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

That's what Chika Honda thought also.

[gburns57au]

In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

Well that would be fine and dandy - if the Appeal was being heard in Australia !

Another query then about Aussie Law, .......if you're found at Customs in possession of say......a banana, or a donut.

They go bonkers about bringing food in Australia.

.... do they have to make that similar proof, that you knew you were in operational control of the cake. Or could you evade a fine by saying that it was accidental?

As a technicality of law....Yes, you could offer that defence. I think that it has been used as a defence previously, The person kicked up a stink when it was confiscated, became abusive to the Customs Officers and then took it to the courts....I seem to recall they ended up with a much bigger fine plus the costs.

I am aware the appeal is not being heard here....However the two QC's are looking at that point as just one of the issues for the appeal.

[Nat]

In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a common law presumption that mens rea is a necessary element in any offence, refer to He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; 60 ALR 449.

[gburns57au]

In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs.

There is a common law presumption that mens rea is a necessary element in any offence, refer to He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; 60 ALR 449.

run that by me again ???

[gburns57au]

Fellow members of the Legal team (TV branch).....

Is it true to say that if you get caught with drugs in an airport, isn't it the mere prima facie fact that you are in possession of the banned substances that is what nails you.

So to argue that you yourself didn't put it there, ...is irrelevant - your offence is being in possession, irrespective of whether you put it there or whether it was dropped into your bag by an over-flying parakeet.

This topic is brought to you by Hong Khlaay Khriat - the housewives choice for lighter moderation.

Apparently so.....In Oz, it is not enough that you are in possession but it must be proved that you had knowledge and dominion or control of the drugs. This will be a point that will be used in Corby's appeal.

That's what Chika Honda thought also.

Chika Honda's defence was shabby to say the least.....their luggage was wrecked and a kindly soul put all their clothes into brand new suitcases for them....with no documentation or records of this occurring....and then drugs were found in the new suitcases linings. ...She was found guilty by a Jury trial. But also I am not sure how long the knowledge and dominion portion of the law actually came into being, it may have been after that case. I was merely quoting it as it stands now.

Edited June 5, 2005 by gburns57au