You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2010 >>
[2010] NZBORARp 7
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (Consistent) (Sections 5, 25(c)) [2010] NZBORARp 7 (12 March 2010)
Last Updated: 5 May 2019
12 MARCH 2010
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
LEGAL ADVICE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
- We
have considered whether the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (“the
Bill”), a Government Bill, is consistent with the
New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990 (“Bill of Rights Act”). The Cabinet Legislation
Committee will consider the Bill
on 18 March 2010.
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be inconsistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. We have
consulted with the Crown
Law Office in the preparation of this advice and it agrees with that
conclusion.
PURPOSE OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
- The
Bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (“the Act”) to reclassify
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as Class B2 controlled
drugs.
- Ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine are currently available over the counter in the form of cold
and flu tablets like Codral, Actifed and Sudafed. Pseudoephedrine
is an essential ingredient for the production of methamphetamine. Ephedrine can
be converted into pseudoephedrine.
- The
Bill will make ephedrine and pseudoephedrine available only with a prescription
from a medical practitioner. The Bill will also
establish that possession of 10
or more grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine will be presumed to be for supply
(whether or not that
ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is contained in a substance,
preparation, or mixture). It is an offence under the Act for a person to
have in
their possession a Class B controlled drug for the purpose of supply. The
offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 8 years.
Exemptions from the offence apply for chemists and other legitimate
suppliers.
- The
purpose of the amendment is to restrict the availability of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine to make it more difficult for potential
manufacturers of
methamphetamine to access its key ingredients. We consider that this proposal
raises an issue of inconsistency with
s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act.
- The
Bill will make other amendments to the Act and the Land Transport Act 1998 that
we have concluded appear to be consistent with
the rights and freedoms affirmed
in the Bill of Rights Act.
INCONSISTENCY WITH S 25(C) OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
- Section
25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right of everyone charged with an
offence to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law. The right
to be presumed innocent requires the Crown to prove an accused person’s
guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In general, a provision which requires an accused
person to disprove on the balance of probabilities the existence of a presumed
fact, that fact being an important element of the offence in question, would
violate the presumption of innocence.1
- Section
6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides:
For the purposes of [the offence of possession for supply], a
person is presumed until the contrary is proved to be in possession
of a
controlled drug for [the purpose of supply] if he or she is in possession of the
controlled drug in an amount, level, or quantity
at or over which the controlled
drug is presumed to be for supply.
- This
presumption reverses the onus of proof so that, to avoid a conviction, a
defendant who is in possession of the fixed quantity
of the drug in question
must prove on the balance of probabilities that he or she was not in possession
of the drug for supply.
- The
Bill creates a presumption that possession of 10 or more grams of ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine is for the purpose of supply. The
presumption creates a prima
facie breach of s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act because it imposes an
obligation on an accused to prove on the balance of probabilities
that he or she
did not intend to supply ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.
JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 5 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
- Where
a Bill is found to be prima facie inconsistent with a right or freedom in
the Bill of Rights Act, it may nevertheless be found that the inconsistency is a
reasonable
limit that is justifiable under s 5 of that Act. The inquiry under s
5 is essentially two-fold:
- Does the
provision serve an important and significant objective; and
- Is there a
rational and proportionate connection between that objective and the
provision?
- In
assessing the Bill under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act we have relied on the
judgment of the New Zealand Supreme Court in R v
Hansen.2 In that case, a majority of the Court
found the presumption in s 6(6) of the Act to be unjustified under s 5. We have
also considered
the advice of the previous Attorney- General on the Misuse of
Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill 2007 (“BZP advice”).
The BZP advice also considered whether the presumption in s 6(6) was justified.
The BZP advice concluded that the Bill appeared to
be inconsistent with s 25(c)
of the Bill of Rights Act and that the inconsistency could not be justified.
1 R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200
(Canadian Supreme Court); S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso (1995) 2 SACR 748
(South African Constitutional Court) and R v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC
(Const) 547 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal)
2 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7
Important and Significant Objective
- As
noted above, the purpose of the amendment is to restrict the availability of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to make it more difficult
for potential
manufacturers of methamphetamine to access its key ingredients.
- The
law in other jurisdictions appears to establish that control of the supply of
drugs is a pressing social objective that might
justify limitations on the
presumption of innocence. In R v Oakes the Supreme Court of Canada held
that the presumption of supply served a pressing social objective and that this
objective was of
sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally
protected right or freedom in certain cases.3
- A
majority of the Court in Hansen also appeared to accept that controlling
the risk posed to society by the supply of marijuana was a significant and
important objective.
The previous Attorney-General in his BZP advice also
concluded that the purpose of the relevant clause - to make it illegal to
possess
and use, sell, supply, import, export, or manufacture BZP, and related
substances - is a significant and important objective under
s 5 of the Bill of
Rights Act.
- Accordingly,
for the purposes of this advice, we have concluded that the purpose of the
amendment is a significant and important objective.
Rational and Proportionate Connection
- The
Law Commission has suggested that the main reason for the presumption for supply
in s 6(6) is that if there was no presumption,
it would sometimes be difficult
for the prosecution to prove that the accused was in possession of the drug with
intent to supply
it. The prosecution would potentially have to call expert
evidence about the ordinary patterns of use of the drug in order to demonstrate
that the accused possessed more of the drug than would usually be possessed by
a high user. This would be time-consuming and
expensive.4 The presumption may also result in more
convictions of people who intentionally supply ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to
makers of
methamphetamine. It may also create a stronger deterrent for people
contemplating supplying ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to makers
of
methamphetamine.
- However,
the presumption will apply in cases where people possess 10 or more grams of
ephedrine or pseudoephedrine for purposes other
than facilitating the production
of methamphetamine. This may result in people being wrongly convicted.
- In
Hansen, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the presumption in s
6(6) is inconsistent with s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act and is
not a
justified limitation under s 5 of that Act. Elias CJ doubted whether a reverse
onus provision could ever be justified.
3 See also S v Bhulwana and R v
Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC (Const) 547
4 Law Commission, Controlling and regulating
drugs, Issues Paper 16, published 11 February 2010.
- In
its issues paper discussing s 6(6) the Law Commission did not support the
retention of s 6(6) and concluded that the difficulties
associated with any
attempt to achieve a reverse onus provision that is consistent with the Bill of
Rights Act outweigh its possible
advantages.5
Reasonable limitation on the right to be presumed
innocent
- One
of the reasons why the Court in Hansen considered that the presumption
was not justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act was because there may be a
method of achieving
the objective in a way that would not limit the right to be
presumed innocent as much as s 6(6) does. Both Tipping and McGrath JJ
considered
that the impairment of the right was more than reasonably necessary because of
the possibility of an evidential onus.
As Tipping J
said:6
It seems to me that a presumption rebuttable in terms of an
evidential onus does put the Crown in a materially better position than
if there
was no presumption at all... I have not been persuaded that the level of
forensic advantage likely to be derived by the
Crown from this more easily
rebutted presumption would fail to sufficiently serve the overall objective.
- Tipping
J also considered that the presumption was not proportionate to the objective
and that “an evidential onus would sufficiently
serve the purpose but
without the same risk of convicting innocent
persons”.7
- Blanchard
J did not share the view that the impairment of the right was more than
reasonably necessary:8
[In] the vast majority of cases, a requirement for an evidential
burden to be surmounted ... would in practical (as opposed to theoretical)
terms
be no different from a requirement that the Crown discharge the onus of proving
the requisite purpose of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
- In
its issues paper Controlling and regulating drugs the Law Commission has
suggested another alternative. An offence of aggravated possession could be
created.9 The offence would be based on the possession
of a quantity of drugs that is generally inconsistent with personal use. Such an
offence
would not include any reverse onus and is unlikely to infringe the right
to be presumed innocent. The Law Commission tentatively
preferred the aggravated
possession offence over both a presumption and an evidential onus.
- There
is a strong possibility that either an evidential onus or an aggravated
possession offence could achieve the desired objective
without limiting the
right to be presumed innocent more than is reasonably necessary.
Highly probable or nearly certain that the purpose of possession
is supply
- In
obiter dictum statements the Court in Hansen suggested that a
reverse onus might be justified under s 5 if it were set at a high enough level
to reduce or
5 Law Commission, Controlling and
regulating drugs, para 10.94
6 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, para 128
7 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, para 135
8 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, para 79
9 Law Commission, Controlling and regulating
drugs, para 10.95
avoid the possibility of wrongful convictions resulting from operation of the
presumption. Tipping J stated:10
...it becomes crucial at what quantity of the drug the presumption is fixed.
It matters whether the trigger amount is set on the basis
that possession of
such an amount raises a bare probability that the purpose of the possession is
supply, a high probability that
such is the accused’s purpose, or a near
certainty. The higher the probability of supply deriving from possession of the
trigger
amount, the more justifiable will be a presumption of supply. The lower
the degree of probability, the more problematic such a presumption
becomes.
- Anderson
J observed that the presumption is most telling in cases where the quantity
possessed may not give rise to the necessary
inference of intent to
supply.11
- The
judgment of the Supreme Court in Hansen suggests that the threshold
required to avoid an inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act must be so high
as to make it highly probable
or nearly certain that the purpose of possession
is supply.
- The
previous Attorney-General in his BZP advice concluded that the trigger for the
presumption was set too low (5 grams or 100 flakes,
tablets, capsules, or other
BZP forms each containing some quantity of the drug). Following dicta in
Hansen the previous Attorney-General said that the threshold must be so
high as to make it highly probable or nearly certain that the purpose
of
possession is supply. For this reason the previous Attorney-General concluded
that the inconsistency with s 25(c) of the Bill
of Rights Act could not be
justified.
- The
Bill will make ephedrine and pseudoephedrine legally available to the public
only via prescription. The Ministry of Health has
advised that the maximum
period of supply on a prescription containing pseudoephedrine will be one month.
Assuming the maximum dosage
of 240 milligrams over 24 hours is adhered to this
creates a maximum of 7.2 grams of pseudoephedrine per prescription. Under the
Bill, the presumption will apply to a person possessing two prescriptions of the
maximum dosage.
Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs
- We
have considered the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs’ (EACD) advice to
the Associate Minister of Health and the Ministry
of Health’s advice to
the EACD (“the advice”). The advice did not explicitly consider the
10 gram threshold in
terms of the dicta in Hansen and the former
Attorney-General’s BZP advice. In its advice to the Associate Minister of
Health the EACD said that the presumption
for supply “would be better
represented by an upper limit less likely to capture legitimate consumers
holding larger quantities
of [the drug].” The EACD appeared to base its
recommendation on an amount of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine that is related to
the presumption for methamphetamine and is more than a person with a cold or flu
could reasonably use. This is quite a different
standard from the need for the
threshold to make it highly probable or nearly certain that the ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine was possessed
with intent for supply.
10 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, para
143
11 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, para 279
LAW COMMISSION REVIEW
- As
discussed above, the Law Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of the
Act and is considering whether the presumption
in s 6(6) should be retained.
Nevertheless, we are required to assess the consistency of legislation with the
Bill of Rights Act
under the current law. The possibility of changes to the law
in the future is a matter for Parliament to consider and does not form
any part
of this analysis.
CONCLUSION
- Based
on the analysis set out above, we have concluded that the Bill appears to be
inconsistent with the right in the Bill of Rights
Act to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law. Accordingly, we recommend that you bring
the Bill to the attention
of the House of Representatives pursuant to s 7 of
the Bill of Rights Act and Standing Order 261. We have attached a draft report
under s 7 for your consideration.
- This
advice has been prepared by the Public Law Group and the Office of Legal
Counsel.
Jeff Orr
Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel
In addition to the general disclaimer for all
documents on this website, please note the following: This advice was prepared
to assist
the Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to
Parliament under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
in relation to
the Biofuel Bill. It should not be used or acted upon for any other purpose. The
advice does no more than assess whether
the Bill complies with the minimum
guarantees contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The release of this
advice should
not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all
aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver
of legal
professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has
been taken to ensure that this document is
an accurate reproduction of the
advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the
Crown Law Office
accepts any liability for any errors or omissions.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2010/7.html