The provision as it currently stands is, to my understanding, that if a person is found with a quantity of drugs exceeding the limit - that is, the limit articulated within the act - that in itself is evidence capable of supporting the serious criminal charge of trafficking.

Mr Wilkinson - Section 12.

Mr DEAN - Yes. That is, selling the drug. However, as the law currently stands, the presumption of trafficking - that is, where the quantity of drugs exceeds the weight amount provided at law - the accused could defend that charge simply by saying to police that it was not their intention to sell. That was referred to in the second reading speech. The amendment provides that the accused must now prove - that is, if it is supported here of course - on the balance on probabilities that there was no intention to sell.

This reminds me of a recent case in the criminal court which brings this out fairly strongly. A person was found to be in possession of a large quantity of marijuana, Mr President, that exceeded the limit for a possession charge, consequently placing it in the category of trafficking. While I will not go into all of the evidence, there was evidence from the Crown of police finding a large number - I think it was 60 to 70-odd - of bags each weighing precisely one ounce. The offender contended it was for personal use and for the use of other syndicate members - there had been a syndicate formed, Mr President, in this instance. It was a likely story, there is no doubt about that. However, it was possible for that evidence - as the current law stands - to have exculpated the accused from the charge of trafficking. It was possible but in this case there was a lot of other evidence that was brought forward.

Now with these amendments the accused will need to prove his or her case that on the balance of probabilities there was no intention to sell. It is really a reversal of the onus of proof, in fact. We know that the reversal of the onus of proof does apply in a number of other criminal charges and so on. The amendment also provides that where trafficking is not substantiated, other lesser convictions will stand. I think that makes commonsense to us. It was quite a preposterous situation where previously it has been possible for people to be charged with serious crimes and whilst that crime has not been proven, it has allowed those people to go free at the end of the day. That has happened in some other cases as well and there have been amendments now to patch up all of those other matters, and there are quite a number that I could refer to. Of course an accused offender should pay for the analysis to be done. In this instance - the one that I have cited - the street value of the drugs taken possession of by the police was I think in the region of $30 000 to $40 000. That is the amount that the offender stood to make out of the sale of those drugs so why should he or she not be required to pay for the analysis of those tests that are being done?

Ms Thorp - I don't think it's the person accused but if it is proven.

Mr DEAN - If it is proven, absolutely.

Ms Thorp - Not just accused.

Mr DEAN - Yes, I have said the 'accused person' meaning if the case is proven against them - that they pay the cost of the analysis of the drug. That is a commonsense position, in my view.

Mr Wilkinson - But that was always the case, that has been going on for a number of years. If the drug was analysed, at the end of the case the prosecution made application that the defendant or accused pay the cost of that analysis.

Mr DEAN - I did not understand that to be the situation. But I accept that position of Mr Wilkinson, who should well know this part of the law. This, I guess, puts it in law and makes it clear. It articulates it very clearly.