Network Against Prohibition (NAP) - NT Chapter

Oppose Labor's 'drug house' laws

(last updated 0839 ACST Sunday 28th May 2006)


Background
Current state of play
Will my house be declared a 'drug house'?
How do they declare a 'drug house'?
Police powers and 'drug houses'
Other aspects of the 'drug house' laws
What if my house is targeted?
Where can I get legal advice?
What can I do about the 'drug house' laws?
More resources




Background

In the Northern Territory of Australia, police can signpost your home as a 'drug house' with a 1.2 metre high flourescent green sign. They can then raid the premises without a warrant whenever they want. And all of this without the need for a single criminal conviction. Just how did this happen?

In June 2001, despite widespread opposition, the NT Country Liberal Party (CLP) Government implemented the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act.

The Public Order Act gave police new powers to define 'anti-social' behaviour, to order people to cease the behaviour and to arrest them if they failed to comply (young people hanging around shopping centres with skateboards were identified as a possible targets of the Act). Failure to comply with one of these police 'instructions' could land you in jail.

The Act also gave police the power to signpost houses as 'anti-social'. Once declared 'anti-social', the police could enter the house without a warrant whenever they wanted.

The Labor party, then in opposition, voted against the Public Order Act because "it wasn't harsh enough on drug users". Syd Stirling, Labor's member for Nhulunbuy, attempted to incorporate amendments to the Act aimed at people who use illicit drugs. He was unsuccessful.

In August 2001, the Labor party won the NT election. Their election platform was almost identical to that of the incumbent CLP, a zero-tolerance, law and order approach to life in the NT. This was no surprise, especially after Syd Stirling joined his supposed arch-rival, former NT Chief Minister Shane Stone, on a trip to New York to learn about zero-tolerance policing tactics.

Soon after their election, the Labor Government repealed the CLP's Public Order Act and moved to implement the draconian 'drug house' legislation as part of an overall 'tough on drugs' package that included 'asset confiscation' laws and amendments to the residential and commercial tenancies acts. The latter amendments gave landlords increased powers to evict tenants whose homes (or businesses) are declared 'drug premises' by the courts.

By March 2002 it was already clear that the new Labor Government was moving to the right of the CLP. Attorney-General Peter Toyne told ABC radio that the Government would introduce a broad raft of legislation to "tackle drug taking and drug dealing wherever it is occurring in our community."

As with the Public Order Act in 2001, the 'drug house' laws attracted much criticism. This criticism was not confined to the NT.

The Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) described the laws as "NAZI-labelling". The legislation also came under fire from the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation.

Locally, the Territory Users Forum (TUF) launched a campaign against the 'drug house' laws, issuing a statement outlining the reasons for their opposition to the laws. TUF held a number of public meetings which culminated in a rally outside the NT Parliament on March 7, 2002.

The NT branch of the Socialist Alliance spoke out against the legislation and even local hoteliers expressed concerns. Unlike the Public Order Act, the 'drug house' laws also apply to commercial premises.

In March 2002, a group of illicit drug users and human rights activists banded together and formed the Network Against Prohibition (NAP) to continue the campaign against the 'drug house' laws and against drug prohibition generally. The NAP had its first protest action on the 22nd March, 2002. The rest, as they say, is history.

[back to top]


Current state of play

By February 2005, NT police had issued 208 'drug house' notices and two premises had been declared 'drug premise's by the courts. The first was in Alice Springs and the second was the housing commission flat occupied by Margot Laughton, a grandmother and a member of the Stolen Generation.

We believe that the NAP campaign is a significant factor in the low number of homes signposted as 'drug houses' by the police. In November 2002, police sources told the NT News police reporter Edith Bevin one of the key reasons to push ahead with the Alice Springs application first was "to avoid demonstrations by Darwin-based pro-drug protesters".

Unfortunately, the police don't have to go through the entire process and actually put one of their signs up to cause you major headaches. In most cases the victims have been forced out of their homes by landlords using the new provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act and/or they have been driven out of their homes by jack-booted police raiding their homes over and over again.

In mid-2003, members of the NAP met with the federal member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, to discuss the possibility of the legislation being overridden by the federal parliament, as was the case with the NT euthanasia laws. Tollner informed the Napatistas that this was out of the question as long as Prime Minister John Howard was in the top job.

As forecast, the legislation has become just one more piece of legislation used as a tool by the police to target the indigenous community. When the police signposted the home of Margot Laughton in January 2003, it became perfectly clear that the 'drug house' laws were just another part of the class and race war that is the war on drugs.

This targeting of the indigenous community continues. The recent establishment of the 'Remote Area Drug Desk' by the NT police Drug Enforcement Section will only compound this.

The results speak for themselves.

Stop press: POLICE will apply for the second drug house notice in three months for a Palmerston residence, following a raid on Monday 10th October 2005.



[back to top]


Will my house be declared a 'drug house'?

The police can have your house declared a 'drug premises' if there are certain indications of supply like:

• police being obstructed in carrying out their duties on the premises;
  
• reports of suspicious vehicular or pedestrian traffic to and from the house (watch out if you are popular);
  
• persons acting as a lookout or alerting those on the premises that Police are about to enter or search;
  
• the presence of drugs on the premises;
• things found on premises that indicate manufacture, supply or use of a drug, and that includes bongs; and, wait for it,
• the presence of persons who appear to be under the influence of drugs.
  

The police can also have a house declared a 'drug premises' if they reasonably suspect that the supply of drugs is taking place at the premises and find drugs on the premises on three separate occasions within a twelve-month period. They must issue you with a notice on each occasion. After giving you a third notice, they can apply to the court to have your home declared a 'drug premises'.

The important thing to remember is that the police don't have to bother with the three 'drug house' notices; they can make an application on the basis that there are certain indications of supply at your house.

Once it is declared a 'drug premises' by the court, a 1.2 metre high flourescent green sign is erected at the entry of the house/unit stating it to be a 'Declared Drug Premises'. Any attempt to alter or tamper with the sign will be treated as an offence, punishable by imprisonment.

No criminal conviction is required and no charges have to be laid for your home to be labelled a 'drug premises'.


[back to top]


How do they declare a 'drug house'?

Police can apply to the courts for a 'Drug Premises Order' where there is 'evidence' that drugs are being supplied from the premises (as outlined above).

Applications for 'drug premises orders' are made through civil proceedings. There is no requirement for there to have been a criminal conviction.

In civil matters, nothing has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, only on the balance of probabilities. Remember the O.J. Simpson case?

A 'drug premises order' is issued when a court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that 'criminal conduct' has occurred. Once it has been issued:

• Police are required to serve a copy of the order on the owner, landlord or tenant within seven days.

• If the owner, landlord or tenant object to the order, they have seven days in which to apply for revocation of the order.

• If the order is not revoked, a 1.2 metre high flourescent green sign is erected at the entry of the premises stating it to be a 'Declared Drug Premises'. Any attempt to remove, alter or tamper with the sign is an offence punishable by imprisonment.

Commercial or Licensed premises

In the case of commercial or licensed premises, seizures of drugs must be from employees or agents of the management or the landlord or owner themselves.


[back to top]


Police powers and 'drug houses'

If your house is declared a 'drug premises':

• It may be searched by a member of the police force at any time without a warrant;

• Anyone on the premises may be searched and an order may be sought authorising the performance of an internal search of the body of the person;

• Every person who is found on the premises at the time a dangerous drug is found on the premises can be charged with possession of the drug;

• An object on the premises that relates to an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act that may have been committed on the premises may be seized;

• A restraining order may be issued to anyone who breaches the peace on the premises;

• Anyone who is on the premises or within 200 metres of the premises or a person suspected to be associated with the premises can be required to provide the a member of the police force with their name and address; and

• Anyone convicted of possession in a declared 'drug premises' faces an aggravated penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act.


[back to top]


Other aspects of the 'drug house' laws

Other amendments to legislation included:

• Giving police the power to apply to the NT Licensing Commission in relation to Licensed Premises to suspend the liquor licence for a period of up to fourteen days;
• Giving landlords accelerated eviction procedures under consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Commercial Tenancies Act;
• A new offence for the possession of equipment or articles used to manufacture a dangerous drug;
• A new offence for the possession of instructions for the manufacture of a dangerous drug along with equipment, implements or an article used for the manufacture or production of drugs;
• A new offence for the possession of precursors – those substances which are used in the manufacture or production of dangerous drugs;
• Provision for the pre-trial destruction of dangerous drugs, precursors and dangerous chemicals where storage of these drugs pose health and security risks;
• New police powers to detain individuals for the purpose of a medical examination, where they are suspected of internally concealing or swallowing drugs; and
• For the purposes of a trafficking offence, the total weight of a mixture of substances which contains an illicit drug is now taken to be the weight of the drug contained in the substance. For example 0.5gm of amphetamines mixed with 0.5gm of glucose = 1gm amphetamines (this provision has already been questioned by the NT Supreme Court).
  

Proceeds of crime confiscation

Another component of the NT Labor Government's 'drug house' package was the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, introduced to the NT Parliament in May 2002.

This Act, which brought the NT into line with most other jurisdictions, provides a way for police to confiscate property outside the criminal jurisdiction. It allows for the confiscation of property of a 'declared drug trafficker' – a person with three or more convictions for serious drug offences.

Proceeds of crime can now be frozen and forfeited through civil proceedings without the need of a criminal conviction.

In civil matters, nothing has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, only on the balance of probabilities.

Civil forfeiture can occur when a court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that 'criminal conduct' has occurred.

In January 2005, an NT Government spokesperson told the ABC that more than $2.5 million in assets had been seized using Criminal Property Forfeiture Legislation since its implementation.

This includes homes owned by alleged 'drug traffickers' and a significant amount of vehicles used by alleged 'drug dealers' or 'grog runners' (alcohol is prohibited in parts of the NT).


[back to top]


What if my house is targeted?


[back to top]

The Napatistas
need your support!

NAPNT Web Portal

Napatista's Blogs