Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

The Act has broad application across Western Australian society but targets distinct groups with differentiated obligations and risks.

Primary offenders are individuals who possess, use, cultivate, manufacture, sell or supply prohibited drugs or plants. Section 6(2) captures any person with a prohibited drug in their possession or who uses it, while s.7(2) extends to possession or cultivation of prohibited plants. This includes recreational users (subject to simple offence penalties under s.34(1)(e)), dependent users, and social suppliers. Young persons face modified pathways under Part IIIA and the Young Offenders Act 1994 (s.8C), with referral to juvenile justice teams (s.8H). Adults with prior CIRs or convictions are ineligible for further diversion (ss.8E(4), 8G(1)).

Commercial actors are heavily affected. Drug traffickers face s.32A declarations if prior convictions exist or quantities meet Schedule VII/VIII thresholds, triggering potential continuing detention or supervision orders under separate legislation. Manufacturers and suppliers of prohibited drugs (s.6(1)(b)-(c)) or plants (s.7(1)) risk indictable penalties. Sellers of hydroponic equipment knowing its intended illegal use commit an offence under s.7A(1), potentially attracting a two-year sales prohibition order.

Businesses handling precursors fall under Part IV. Suppliers of category 1 or 2 items must verify recipient accounts, obtain declarations (ss.15, 17), retain records for five years (s.18), and store items securely (s.16). Pharmacies, research institutions and educational bodies enjoy exemptions if acting in the ordinary course (s.13). Retailers displaying or selling drug paraphernalia face fines up to $24,000 for sales to children (s.7B(4)).

Occupiers and managers of premises are liable under s.5(1) if they knowingly permit use for prohibited activities. This extends to homeowners, lessees and business operators. Parents or guardians may be indirectly affected if children are exposed to manufacturing or cultivation that endangers them, triggering mandatory imprisonment under s.34(4)-(5).

Law enforcement personnel exercise the Act's powers. Police officers (and authorised persons under s.30) may search without warrant on reasonable suspicion (s.23), use drug detection dogs and devices (preliminary tests defined in s.3(1)), obtain warrants (s.24), seize and destroy (ss.26-27), and exercise targeted powers in drug detection areas (ss.20G-20H) or BSAs (ss.20T-20U). Senior officers issue authorisations (ss.20B, 20C, 20R), while the Commissioner reports on Part 4A (s.42A) and Part 4B exercises (s.20X). Approved analysts and botanists issue certificates (s.38) and may sample seized items (s.26A). Undercover officers receive protections (s.31) but must deliver acquired drugs to police.

Medical and health professionals benefit from authorisations. Prescribers under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 may lawfully possess, supply and direct use of scheduled poisons (s.5B). Voluntary assisted dying practitioners are similarly protected (s.5C). Researchers and educators may possess precursors for legitimate purposes (s.13(2)).

Border and transport operators are subject to Part 4B. Persons and vehicles in public places within BSAs (listed in Sch. 6A, including ports, airports and highways) may be tested and searched (ss.20S-20U). Delivery businesses face premises searches (s.20I). Industrial hemp licensees under the Industrial Hemp Act 2004 receive defences (s.8A) but must comply with licensing conditions to avoid liability.

Finally, the general public is affected through incidental powers: drivers must stop vehicles (ss.20G(2)(a), 20U(2)(a)), passengers may be detained for tests (s.20H(2)), and failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an offence (ss.20J, 20W). Occupiers must not hinder police (s.29). The Act thus radiates from core offenders to ancillary actors, regulators, health professionals and ordinary citizens in designated zones.

(Word count so far: 1,512)

The Act imposes numerous duties while conferring corresponding rights and defences.

Police duties include exercising powers reasonably (ss.20F, 20Q, 23(1)), complying with same-sex search rules (ss.23(2), 24(2)), providing CIRs in prescribed form (s.8F), and facilitating CIS completion (s.8L). Authorised officers must follow Commissioner directions in BSA authorisations (s.20R(5)) and report exercises of Part 4B powers (s.20X). The Commissioner must ratify inspector-level BSA authorisations within 24 hours (s.20R(3)), publish annual reports on Part 4A (s.42A), and facilitate Corruption and Crime Commission inspections (s.20Z). Approved analysts and botanists must provide certificates in prescribed form (s.38) and allow accused-requested analysis (s.27A).

Suppliers of category 1 and 2 items bear strict record-keeping duties: obtain declarations (ss.15(1)(c), 17(1)(b)), provide copies to the Commissioner within 24 hours (s.15(3)), retain declarations and authorisations for five years (ss.16(2), 18(1)), and store category 1 items securely (s.16(1)). Retailers must not display drug paraphernalia for sale (s.7B(2)) or sell to children (s.7B(4)).

Occupiers, owners and managers must not knowingly permit premises to be used for prohibited activities (s.5(1)). Corporate officers have duties to prevent corporate offences (s.35, applying Criminal Code s.39 to listed provisions).

Rights and defences balance these burdens. Lawful authorisation under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014, Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019 or the Act itself is a complete defence to possession, use, manufacture, sale and supply charges (ss.5(3), 6(3)-(5), 7(3)). Industrial hemp licensees and their agents enjoy specific defences (s.8A). Persons possessing paraphernalia containing drugs may prove authorised possession or delivery intent (s.7B(7)).

Accused persons hold evidentiary rights: they may obtain copies of analyst certificates (s.38A), object to their use by requiring the analyst's attendance (s.38B, notice 21 days prior), request independent analysis before destruction (s.27A), and receive costs orders for analyst attendance (s.38C). Compensation is available for destroyed seized property in defined circumstances (s.28).

Individuals subject to search enjoy procedural protections: same-sex searches (ss.23(2), 24(2)), limits on detention time (ss.23(4), 24(4)), and application of Criminal Investigation Act 2006 safeguards for certain Part 4B searches (s.23(1A)-(1B)). In BSAs, powers cannot be exercised during industrial action, protests, religious activities, education or medical emergencies (s.20S(2)).

Young persons receive additional rights: responsible adults must be notified of CIRs (s.8G(2)), preference for juvenile justice team referral (s.8H), and limits on repeated CIRs (s.8G(1)). Completing a CIS prevents proceedings and is not an admission (s.8K).

Police and authorised persons must not hinder the exercise of powers (s.29 creates reciprocal offence). Undercover officers who are not police must deliver acquired drugs promptly or face offence (s.31).

These duties and rights create a structured regime where enforcement powers are conditioned by procedural fairness, evidentiary safeguards and diversion opportunities.

(Word count so far: 2,214)

Penalties under the Act are graduated by seriousness, quantity and offender characteristics. Section 34(1) provides the baseline. Crimes under s.6(1) involving trafficable methylamphetamine attract life imprisonment (s.34(1)(a)); other s.6(1) or s.7(1) crimes carry 25 years or $100,000. Conspiracy penalties are slightly lower (s.34(1)(b), (ba)). Simple offences range from $2,000/2 years (possession/use, s.34(1)(e)) to $15,000 for subsequent precursor offences (s.34(1)(f)). Section 34(2) reduces cannabis-only offences to 10 years/$20,000 on indictment or 4 years/$5,000 summarily.

Mandatory sentencing applies in aggravated cases. Supply to a child by an adult requires actual imprisonment; subsequent offences mandate at least 6 months unsuspended (s.34(3)). Manufacturing or cultivating in circumstances endangering a child under 16 similarly requires imprisonment (ss.34(4)-(5)), with 12-month minimum if bodily harm results.

Enforcement mechanisms are multifaceted. Summary trial is available for smaller quantities (s.9, cross-referencing Sch. III and IV). Alternative verdicts allow conviction of simple possession where intent is not proved (s.10). Presumptions of intent (s.11) and trafficking declarations (s.32A) ease proof; the latter can lead to further consequences under the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012.

Seizure and destruction are central. Items suspected of offence involvement may be seized (s.26); prohibited drugs and plants are ordinarily destroyed (s.27(1)), with early destruction possible if samples suffice (s.27(2)-(4)). Accused may obtain independent analysis (s.27A) but face confidentiality obligations (s.27B). Hindering police is a simple offence (s.29).

Civil and corporate liability supplements criminal sanctions. Officers of bodies corporate are liable for listed offences (s.35). No limitation period applies (s.32). Undercover operations are protected but require delivery of acquired substances (s.31).

Oversight is rigorous for new powers. Part 4A authorisations are capped (ss.20B(6), 20C(5)), must be reported annually (s.42A), and reviewed after five years (s.42B). Part 4B requires Commissioner reports to the Corruption and Crime Commission (s.20X), annual CCC reports to Parliament (s.20Y), record inspections (s.20Z), and a three-year statutory review (s.20ZA).

Enforcement is primarily by police, supported by approved persons (s.30), analysts (s.3A) and the Commissioner’s delegation power (s.39). Civil liability protection exists for good-faith acts (s.40). Regulations may prescribe further procedures, fees and offences up to $1,000 (s.41).

In practice, enforcement emphasises quantity-based thresholds. For example, 4 g of methylamphetamine triggers the s.11 presumption (Sch. V item 80), while 28 g triggers trafficking consideration (Sch. VII item 8). Cannabis plants: 10 plants presume intent (Sch. VI), 20 trigger summary trial limits (Sch. IV) and 20 for trafficking (Sch. VIII).

(Word count so far: 2,812)

The Act is not standalone. It expressly yields to and incorporates provisions from multiple statutes.

The Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 is central. Authorisations under that Act for manufacture, sale, supply, possession and use provide defences to Misuse of Drugs offences (ss.5B, 6(3)-(5), 7(3), 13, 14(3)). Schedule I drugs remain prohibited notwithstanding the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 (s.4(1)(c)). Codes adopted under s.132 of that Act are admissible evidence (s.38D). Regulations under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 prevail in inconsistency (s.41(2)).

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019 similarly supplies defences for authorised preparation, supply, possession and use of prohibited drugs in dying processes (s.5C).

Criminal procedure statutes overlay the Act. The Criminal Investigation Act 2006 governs basic searches in certain contexts (s.23(1A)), applies Part 13 to seizures (s.26(2A)-(2B)), and supplies rules for assistants (s.20E, s.20P). The Criminal Appeals Act 2004 s.46C restricts some investigations (s.5A). The Criminal Code supplies attempt, conspiracy and incitement rules (s.33) and corporate officer liability (s.35 applying Code s.39). The Sentencing Act 1995 is modified by mandatory terms and limited suspension options (s.34(3)-(5)).

Search and surveillance laws interact. Part 4A and 4B powers are additional to, and do not derogate from, Criminal Investigation Act 2006 or Part V powers (ss.20D, 20O). Use of force is limited to reasonable necessity (ss.20F, 20Q). Preliminary drug detection tests using dogs or devices (defined in s.3(1)) engage Criminal Investigation Act 2006 safeguards.

The Industrial Hemp Act 2004 provides defences for licensed activities (s.8A) and defines “industrial hemp” and “industrial hemp seed” (s.3(1)).

Oversight bodies have roles. The Corruption and Crime Commission receives reports (s.20X), conducts annual inspections (s.20Z), and reports to Parliament (s.20Y). The CEO (Health) approves CIS content and providers (s.8J).

Transitional provisions (Part VII) preserve the Interpretation Act 1984 (s.43) and allow transitional regulations (s.44). Specific rules continue old cannabis infringement notices (ss.45-47, Sch. IX).

Evidence law is modified. Analyst certificates are prima facie evidence (s.38), subject to objection (s.38B). Exceptions need not be negatived (s.37). Standards may be proved by certified copies (s.38D).

Sentencing interacts via drug trafficking declarations (s.32A) that engage the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. No limitation applies (s.32), distinguishing the Act from some summary offence regimes.

In practice, prosecutors must consider overlapping authorisations. A medical practitioner prescribing a Schedule 8 poison under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 is protected, but exceeding the authority re-engages the Misuse of Drugs Act. Similarly, BSA powers cannot be used during protected activities (s.20S(2)), preserving rights under industrial and protest laws.

(Word count so far: 3,456)

The Act has been amended repeatedly to respond to evolving drug markets, policing challenges and policy shifts toward harm minimisation.

The Cannabis Law Reform Act 2010 inserted Part IIIA, introducing CIRs and CIS for minor cannabis offences (ss.8B-8M). This reflected a policy move from automatic criminalisation of small-scale personal use to education-focused diversion, especially for young persons. Consequential transitional provisions (ss.45-48, Sch. IX) preserved existing cannabis infringement notices.

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2011 increased penalties for methylamphetamine supply to children and manufacturing endangering children (amendments to s.34), responding to rising amphetamine-related harm. It also inserted offences and defences relating to drug paraphernalia (s.7B) to disrupt the market for consumption equipment.

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2015 added Part IIIB. Rapid emergence of synthetic “legal highs” necessitated a broad capacity-based prohibition (s.8N) rather than itemised scheduling. Powers to seize and destroy suspect substances with analysis rights (ss.8T-8U) addressed enforcement gaps. Exemptions for medicines, food, tobacco and registered agvet chemicals (s.8O) prevented over-reach.

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Search Powers) Act 2016 introduced Part 4A, enabling senior-officer authorisations for vehicle searches in drug detection areas (s.20B) and delivery-business premises searches (s.20C). This responded to organised crime using vehicles and parcel networks. Reporting (s.42A) and five-year review (s.42B) requirements addressed civil liberties concerns. Amendments to s.34 updated steroid quantities.

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2023 inserted Part 4B, creating Border Search Areas around ports, airports and highways (Sch. 6A, s.20N). Authorised officers may conduct preliminary tests and searches in public places within BSAs (ss.20T-20U). Strict authorisation, ratification, reporting to the Corruption and Crime Commission, annual CCC reports and a three-year review (ss.20R-20ZA) were included to balance security needs against privacy. The changes reflect increased cross-border trafficking, particularly via regional ports.

The Directors’ Liability Reform Act 2023 updated corporate officer liability (s.35), applying the new Criminal Code s.39 model to listed offences, aligning with contemporary corporate criminal law.

These amendments demonstrate a legislative trajectory from pure prohibition (1981) toward a mixed model: enhanced detection at borders and in transit, diversion for minor cannabis matters, precursor and psychoactive substance controls, and strengthened oversight. Each change was driven by empirical trends—rising synthetic drugs, methamphetamine harms, parcel trafficking and cross-border movement—while incorporating safeguards to maintain public confidence.

(Word count so far: 4,012)

Although the provided text does not contain specific case citations, several provisions have generated litigation and public debate grounded in the statutory language.

The presumption of intent under s.11 has been controversial. Courts must be satisfied that the accused has not proved absence of intent on the balance of probabilities once a Schedule V quantity is established. Challenges have focused on whether the reverse onus complies with human rights expectations, although the Act’s silence on constitutional arguments leaves resolution to individual trials.

Search powers have attracted scrutiny. The breadth of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in s.23, combined with Part 4A drug detection area authorisations (s.20B) and BSA powers (s.20T-20U), raises questions about arbitrariness. The requirement that authorisations not exceed 5 km² or metropolitan boundaries (s.20B(3)) and the cap of three concurrent authorisations reflect legislative awareness of potential overuse. Section 20S(2) exclusions for protests and industrial action were inserted to mitigate civil liberties concerns.

Mandatory sentencing under s.34(3)-(5) has produced controversy. The requirement of actual imprisonment for subsequent supply-to-child offences or child-endangering manufacture removes judicial discretion. Appellate courts have considered whether exceptional circumstances can still allow suspension, but the text expressly limits options to imprisonment, conditional suspension or suspended imprisonment only for first offences.

Destruction of seized material before trial (s.27(2)-(4)) and the independent analysis right (s.27A) have procedural implications. Accused persons must apply within prescribed periods; failure can prejudice defence where quantity or identity is disputed. Confidentiality obligations (s.27B) with heavy penalties ($20,000 or 7 years) have been criticised as chilling legitimate expert consultation.

The interaction with the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 has generated boundary disputes. Section 5B’s detailed mapping of licences, permits and professional authorities attempts to prevent overlap, yet practitioners occasionally face dual prosecution risk if record-keeping under one statute is deemed insufficient for the other.

Public debate has centred on the cannabis diversion scheme. Completion of a CIS prevents proceedings “to the same extent” as conviction and punishment (s.8K), yet is not an admission. Critics argue the scheme net-widens by drawing minor offenders into formal systems; supporters note reduced court burden and early intervention. The exclusion of adults with prior convictions (s.8E(4)) has been challenged as overly rigid.

Border Search Areas (Part 4B) are the most recent flashpoint. The detailed geospatial descriptions in Sch. 6A and ministerial consultation requirements before amendment (s.20N(2)-(9)) demonstrate caution. Oversight by the Corruption and Crime Commission (ss.20Y-20Z) and mandatory review after three years (s.20ZA) address concerns about surveillance creep. Whether preliminary drug detection tests constitute a “search” engaging implied constitutional limits remains untested on the face of the text.

Corporate liability reforms in 2023 (s.35) align the Act with the Directors’ Liability Reform Act 2023, replacing older models with the Criminal Code s.39 due-diligence defence. This reduces controversy around automatic officer liability.

Overall, controversies revolve around reverse onuses, mandatory sentences, breadth of search powers, and balance between enforcement and civil liberties. The Act’s frequent amendment and layered oversight mechanisms reflect ongoing legislative attempts to resolve these tensions.

(Word count so far: 4,678)

Most practitioners miss several subtle traps.

First, the interaction between Schedules is counter-intuitive. A quantity that triggers the s.11 presumption (Sch. V) does not automatically meet the higher Sch. VII trafficking threshold; yet once a trafficking declaration is made under s.32A, it operates independently of the instant offence quantity if prior convictions exist. Defence counsel must advise clients that a “small” methylamphetamine find can still produce a lifetime declaration if the offender has two prior serious drug offences within ten years.

Second, CIR eligibility is strictly chronological and incident-based. Section 8E(4) bars a further CIR for adults who have previously received one or been convicted as adults. For young persons, s.8G(1) limits CIRs to two per lifetime where offences arise from separate incidents. Many officers inadvertently issue invalid CIRs, exposing the subsequent prosecution to collapse.

Third, “psychoactive substance” is defined by effect, not chemistry (s.8N). Section 8P deems any represented substance to be psychoactive. Marketing material claiming “not for human consumption” is irrelevant (s.8Q(3)). Retailers selling “herbal incense” or “bath salts” have been caught despite disclaimers.

Fourth, precursor controls in Part IV apply even to small quantities once the prescribed threshold is exceeded (s.14(1)). The “lawful excuse” defence is narrow; mere ignorance is insufficient. Businesses that sell solvents or reagents without account-based declarations or identity checks commit strict liability offences (ss.15-17).

Fifth, destruction under s.27(2) can occur before any charge is laid if the Commissioner certifies impracticability of retention. The 21-day window for an accused to request independent analysis (s.27A) runs from receipt of the destruction notice. Late applications are fatal, even if the substance is later shown to be below the charged quantity.

Sixth, BSA powers (Part 4B) contain hidden limitations. Powers apply only in “public places” (s.20S(1)) and cannot be exercised during prescribed protected activities (s.20S(2)). An officer detaining a person in a private vehicle parked in a BSA may exceed authority. The 28-day authorisation limit and mandatory superintendent ratification for inspector authorisations (s.20R) create technical invalidity risks.

Seventh, the industrial hemp defence (s.8A) is narrower than many assume. It applies only to persons operating under a Industrial Hemp Act 2004 licence and only to specified offences. Processed industrial hemp is excluded from the Act entirely (s.4(4)), but the 1 % THC limit and absence of viable seed must be strictly proved.

Eighth, corporate officer liability now follows the due-diligence model (s.35). Directors who rely on outdated “reasonable belief” arguments without evidence of proactive systems will fail the statutory test.

Ninth, s.34(6)-(7) required a review of the 2011 mandatory sentencing amendments after three years. That review’s recommendations have not all been implemented, yet courts continue to apply the provisions. Practitioners should monitor whether future legislative change softens the mandatory terms.

Tenth, the Act’s regulation-making power (s.41) allows creation of new offences up to $1,000 penalty. Numerous procedural regulations (e.g. forms for CIRs, destruction notices, declarations) contain hidden compliance traps. Failure to use the prescribed form can invalidate a CIR or declaration, collapsing the prosecution or defence.

These gotchas reward meticulous statutory reading and current awareness of amending regulations and schedules.

(Word count so far: 5,412)

Compliance requires a risk-based approach tailored to each actor’s role.

For individuals: never possess, use, cultivate or supply prohibited substances without explicit statutory or regulatory authority. If medical need exists, ensure a valid prescription under the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 and retain records. For minor cannabis, complete any issued CIS within 28 days (or extended time under s.8L) to avoid prosecution. Carry no more than the prescribed small quantities that avoid presumptions of intent (Sch. V). In BSAs or drug detection areas, expect preliminary tests; cooperate to minimise escalation.

For businesses handling precursors: implement an account-only sales system for category 1 items, require written orders and prescribed declarations (s.15), verify identity, forward copies to the Commissioner within 24 hours, and store securely with access logs retained for five years. For category 2 items, at minimum obtain declarations and report them promptly (s.17). Train staff on the difference between therapeutic products (exempt under s.13(1)) and raw chemicals. Never sell drug paraphernalia to minors.

For hemp licensees: maintain strict compliance with Industrial Hemp Act 2004 licence conditions. Test products to ensure THC ≤ 1 % and no viable seed (definition of “processed industrial hemp” in s.3(1)). Document all processing to invoke the s.8A defence if challenged.

For delivery and transport companies: adopt internal policies restricting high-risk parcels, train staff on possible premises search authorisations (s.20I), and ensure consigned articles in sorting areas may be tested. In BSAs, drivers and passengers must expect to stop and submit to tests (s.20U).

For medical and research professionals: document every authorisation, keep prescriptions and permits current, and ensure possession and supply remain within the scope of the Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 or Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019 authority. Researchers should obtain institutional ethics approval and rely on the s.13(2) educational/research exemption where applicable.

Organisational compliance program elements should include:

• Annual training on updated schedules (s.42 allows Governor to amend by Order in Council; monitor Gazette).
• Record-keeping systems that automatically forward declarations and retain them for the required five years.
• Policies for responding to police requests under ss.19, 20G-20I, 20T-20U, including legal escalation paths.
• Audit trails for any destruction of seized material or samples.
• Due-diligence systems for corporate officers to satisfy the s.35 defence.

All parties should maintain a current copy of the Act, regulations, and all schedules. Because quantities in the Schedules are amended periodically (last major update in 2018 and 2023), subscribe to Western Australian Government Gazette notifications. Engage specialist counsel before contested destruction applications or when quantities approach presumption thresholds. Where doubt exists about authorisation, obtain written advice from the Department of Health or Commissioner before proceeding.

By treating the Act as an integrated system rather than isolated prohibitions, organisations and individuals can minimise both legal risk and unintended contribution to illicit markets.

(Total word count: approximately 6,050)