Suchergebnisse

In Australia, eight of the nine legal jurisdictions have enacted 'deemed supply' provisions for illicit drug trafficking offences that presume 'intent to supply' based on the quantity of a drug an alleged offender is found with and attach criminal liability for the offence of supply. Such laws have been enacted for more than 35 years. In this article we critically examine: the rationale for the widespread adoption of Australian deemed supply laws; and the justifiability and necessity of such laws in current legal practice. A legal and historical analysis was undertaken. Data were sourced from legislation, Parliamentary records (Hansard), case law, published research on international drug law, research on drug user behaviour and our own experience in the prosecution of drug offenders. Analysis shows that Australian deemed supply laws were introduced to overcome perceived difficulties in the prosecution and sanction of drug traffickers. Yet such laws conflict with the dominant international practice that sanctions trafficking without the use of deemed supply provisions. They contribute towards harms to users and miscarriages of justice and increase pressure to use police and prosecutorial discretion in ways that may ultimately adversely affect community confidence in the administration of the criminal law. We conclude that the laws should be subject to legislative review and/or, preferably, abolition from Australian drug trafficking law.

Background: Legal thresholds are used in many parts of the world to define the quantity of illicit drugs over which possession is deemed "trafficking" as opposed to "possession for personal use". There is limited knowledge about why or how such laws were developed. In this study we analyse the policy processes underpinning the introduction and expansion of the drug trafficking legal threshold system in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Methods: A critical legal and historical analysis was undertaken sourcing data from legislation, Parliamentary Hansard debates, government inquiries, police reports and research. A timeline of policy developments was constructed from 1970 until 2013 outlining key steps including threshold introduction (1970), expansion (1985), and wholesale revision (1988). We then critically analysed the drivers of each step and the roles played by formal policy actors, public opinion, research/data and the drug trafficking problem. Results: We find evidence that while justified as a necessary tool for effective law enforcement of drug trafficking, their introduction largely preceded overt police calls for reform or actual increases in drug trafficking. Moreover, while the expansion from one to four thresholds had the intent of differentiating small from large scale traffickers, the quantities employed were based on government assumptions which led to "manifest problems" and the revision in 1988 of over 100 different quantities. Despite the revisions, there has remained no further formal review and new quantities for "legal highs" continue to be added based on assumption and an uncertain evidence-base. Conclusion: The development of legal thresholds for drug trafficking in NSW has been arbitrary and messy. That the arbitrariness persists from 1970 until the present day makes it hard to conclude the thresholds have been well designed. Our narrative provides a platform for future policy reform.

Background: Significant research attention has been given to understanding the processes of drug policy reform. However, there has been surprisingly little analysis of the persistence of policy in the face ofopposition and evidence of ineffectiveness. In this article we analysed just such a case – police drug detection dog policy in NSW, Australia. We sought to identify factors which may account for the continuation of this policy, in spite of counter-evidence and concerted advocacy.Methods: The analysis was conducted using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). We collated documents relating to NSW drug detection dog policy from 1995 to 2016, including parliamentaryrecords (NSW Parliament Hansard), government and institutional reports, legislation, police procedures, books, media, and academic publications. Texts were then read, coded and classified against the core dimensions of the ACF, including subsystem actors and coalitions, their belief systems and resources and venues employed for policy debate.Results: Three coalitions were identified as competing in the policy subsystem: security/law and order, civil liberties and harm reduction. Factors that aided policy stability were the continued dominance of thesecurity/law and order coalition since they introduced the drug dog policy; a power imbalance enabling the ruling coalition to limit when and where the policy was discussed; and a highly adversarial policysubsystem. In this context even technical knowledge that dogs infringed civil liberties and increased risks of overdose were readily downplayed, leading to only incremental changes in implementation ratherthan policy cessation or wholesale revision.Conclusion: The analysis provides new insights into why the accumulation of new evidence and advocacy efforts can be insufficient to drive significant policy change. It poses a challenge for the evidence-based paradigm suggesting that in highly adversarial policy subsystems new evidence is unlikely to generate policy change without broader subsystem change, such as reducing the adversarial nature and/or providing new avenues for cross-coalition learning.