Arrested by australian federal police importation border controlled substance

[ahura999]

substance list-dec10.pdf

Notification-of-import_export-activities-sept10.pdf

import precursors-feb11.pdf

narcotics_psychotropics-feb11.pdf

SAS-feb11.pdf

import khat-feb11.pdf

Khat_report_FINAL-1.pdf

1997_dalcason_1.pdf

ACMDCathinonesReport.pdf

Methylone1.pdf

Methylone1.pdf

Aust fed police charge 5 counts importation border controlled substance 1 attempt to possess

Hi all would like to start a serious discussion , someone has been arrested by australian federal police , they say that its 3kg of 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE , an analogue of METHCATHINONE, an AMPHETAMINE !!!

IT WAS METHYLONE

FROM WIKIPEDIA :

Methylone, also known as "M1", 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone, bk-MDMA, MDMC, and in the UK as Arlone, is an entactogen and stimulant of the phenethylamine, amphetamine, and cathinone classes. It was originally patented by Peyton Jacob and Alexander Shulgin in 1996 as an antidepressant.[1] The more intuitive abbreviation MDMC unfortunately can not be used for this chemical, since it had already been given to another earlier Shulgin creation, 3,4-ethylenedioxymethamphetamine. Methylone is a close structural analogue of MDMA, differing by the addition of a β-ketone group.[2]

 

Australian law.

The analogue definition is pretty broad:

 

 

 

methcathinone trafficking supreme court decision

DAVID KILLICK | February 24, 2011 12.01am

A THRIVING business selling "legal highs" has landed a Howrah storeman in court after his Chinese supplier sent him several kilograms of a banned drug.

Mitchell John Campbell, 23, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court in Hobart yesterday to trafficking a controlled substance.

The charge relates to the sale of methylmethcathinone, a party drug also known as israelis, which started to turn up in Hobart in 2008.

Crown prosecutor Allison Shand told the court Campbell was arrested in May 2009 after police intercepted several bulk shipments of the drug from Shanghai.

A search of his house revealed several 1kg packages of white powder, thousands of empty pill capsules, two laptop computers and several thousand dollars in cash.

Campbell told police he had been ordering products from the Chinese Neo Organic website since 2009.

His internet-based business, called Neobase, sold herbal highs which Campbell believed were legal, although he became suspicious when the powders he ordered arrived labelled as "bath salts".

The estimated value of drugs Campbell possessed or sold could be several hundred thousand dollars, the court heard.

Emails revealed he had discussed buying up to 50kg of the drug for up to $250,000.

Defence lawyer Jim Wilkinson told the court his client had started a legitimate business but had been led astray by his suppliers who told him the drug was legal in Australia.

"He believed everything he was doing was legal, however he was young and naive," Mr Wilkinson told the court.

Justice Shan Tennent will sentence Campbell on Tuesday.

DAVID KILLICK | March 02, 2011 12.01am

http://www.themercury.com.au/article...ofjustice.html

A HOWRAH storeman who sold what he thought were legal highs over the internet has been convicted of drug trafficking.

Mitchell John Campbell, 23, pleaded guilty to the offence last week and was sentenced yesterday by Justice Shan Tennent.

The charge related to the sale of 4-methylmethcathinone and ethylcathinone, party drugs also known as israelis, which started to turn up in Hobart in 2008.

Campbell was arrested in May 2009 after police intercepted several bulk shipments of the drugs sent through the post from suppliers in Shanghai.

A search of his house revealed several one-kilogram packages of white powder, thousands of empty pill capsules, two laptop computers and several thousand dollars in cash.

Campbell's internet-based business, called Neobase, sold herbal highs which he believed were legal, although he became suspicious when the powders he ordered arrived labelled as "bath salts".

Justice Tennent said Campbell had been naive in the beginning and reckless towards the end of his offending.

"You were young and looking for an opportunity and somewhat naively accepted the assurances you were initially given that this particular product was legal," she said.

"While all of that may be true, you did not stop your activities when you realised the potential illegality of them but continued on, even increasing the scale of your business."

Justice Tennent sentenced Campbell to six months in jail, suspended for three years.

She also ordered he pay a $10,000 penalty from the proceeds.

methylone.pdf

methylone.pdf

Methylone1.pdf

ACMDCathinonesReport.pdf

1997_dalcason_1.pdf

Khat_report_FINAL-1.pdf

import khat-feb11.pdf

SAS-feb11.pdf

narcotics_psychotropics-feb11.pdf

import precursors-feb11.pdf

Notification-of-import_export-activities-sept10.pdf

substance list-dec10.pdf

methylone.pdf

Methylone1.pdf

ACMDCathinonesReport.pdf

1997_dalcason_1.pdf

Khat_report_FINAL-1.pdf

import khat-feb11.pdf

SAS-feb11.pdf

narcotics_psychotropics-feb11.pdf

import precursors-feb11.pdf

Notification-of-import_export-activities-sept10.pdf

substance list-dec10.pdf

Edited March 8, 2011 by ahura999

[nabraxas]

Hi all would like to start a serious discussion

what is it you want to discuss?

aren't "3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE" & "3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone" the same thing: methylone?

& isn't methylone the cathinone analogue of MDMA(ecstasy)?

& is that not covered by the analogue definition?

seems to me that from a legal point ov view it's a fair cop.

[ahura999]

what is it you want to discuss?

aren't "3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE" & "3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone" the same thing: methylone?

& isn't methylone the cathinone analogue of MDMA(ecstasy)?

& is that not covered by the analogue definition?

seems to me that from a legal point ov view it's a fair cop.

 

ok , this is what i wish to discuss , if the charge sheet reads , " import a border controlled substance , namely 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE, an analogue of METHCATHINONE, then Technically that is incorrect , right ?

and , are 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE & 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone the same thing: methylone?

Thats what i would like to discuss !

Edited March 8, 2011 by ahura999

[Alice]

Mate look at the structure....how is that not an analogue?! Maybe if you're more specific about what exactly you think is incorrect about it? Is it because they have said it was an analogue of methcathinone, and you think they should have said analogue of MDMA, as the structure is closer?

and , are 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE & 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone the same thing: methylone?

Yes. All of these are acceptable names. And the IUPAC name is (±)-2-methylamino-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propan-1-one.

[naja naja]

I think this is a semi intelligent bot.

[Alice]

I think this is a semi intelligent bot.

 

I don't think so, earlier posts seem legit.

[ahura999]

Is it because they have said it was an analogue of methcathinone, and you think they should have said analogue of MDMA, as the structure is closer?

 

YES , what im saying is the charge of import " 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE, an analogue of METHCATHINONE , is not correct , it is more correct to say its an analogue of MDMA , yeah .

So technically , in a court of law , now that been charged with they have to prove , that , 3,4,METHYLENEDIOXYMETHCATHINONE, is an analogue of METHCATHINONE , right ?

Semi intelligent bot , looking for an Intelligent human !!

[blangschpeer]

Technically it is an analogue of both so he could have been charged either way, or if the cops were vindictive enough he could have been charged twice although one would inevitably been dropped in the course of the case. They could also charge him with having an analogue of methamphetamine... The list just goes on...

End of the day, it is an analogue and this person is pretty screwed. If they go to court, arguing semantics will just piss off the judge and the jury and that could not possibly end well for the person.

Good luck to the charged person though, hopefully they get a lenient judge.

[ahura999]

Technically it is an analogue of both so he could have been charged either way, or if the cops were vindictive enough he could have been charged twice although one would inevitably been dropped in the course of the case. They could also charge him with having an analogue of methamphetamine... The list just goes on...

End of the day, it is an analogue and this person is pretty screwed. If they go to court, arguing semantics will just piss off the judge and the jury and that could not possibly end well for the person.

Good luck to the charged person though, hopefully they get a lenient judge.

 

thanks .

[Torsten]

The analogues clause is very broad, so methylone could be charged as an analogue of many different drugs in the schedules, including ephedrine, amphetamine, MDA, MDMA, cathinone, methcathinone, and a shitload of others. However, the analogues clauses in most states and federally have not been tested much in court. Then again, the federal prosecution of methylone imports has indeed been tested. He's probably lucky not to have been charged under the federal criminal code act like most others have.

I think the penalty received is very small in comparison to others.

[ahura999]

The analogues clause is very broad, so methylone could be charged as an analogue of many different drugs in the schedules, including ephedrine, amphetamine, MDA, MDMA, cathinone, methcathinone, and a shitload of others. However, the analogues clauses in most states and federally have not been tested much in court. Then again, the federal prosecution of methylone imports has indeed been tested. He's probably lucky not to have been charged under the federal criminal code act like most others have.

I think the penalty received is very small in comparison to others.

 

yes i agree ,he was arrested by tasmanian police ,a state matter . Not by AFP , therefore not a federal or commonwealth matter . Whole different ball game !

[ahura999]

 

Chemical analysis of four capsules containing the controlled substance

analogues 4-methylmethcathinone, 2-fluoromethamphetamine,

a-phthalimidopropiophenone and N-ethylcathinone

 

 

Andrew Camilleri ( a ),*, Martin R. Johnston( b ),1, Michael Brennan ( c ), Sean Davis ( d ), David G.E. Caldicott ( e )

 

a . Forensic Science SA, 21 Divett Place, Adelaide, Australia

b . School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

c .RaveSafe, Queensland, Australia

d .Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services (QHFSS), 39 Kessels Rd, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

e .Emergency Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

 

A B S T R A C T

Article history: In August 2007, four capsules containing white powders, said to have originated from an Israel-based

Received 6 October 2009 Internet company ‘‘Neorganics’’, were anonymously delivered to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, South

Received in revised form 11 December 2009 Australia. The capsules were analysed and the active components were identified including 4-

Accepted 11 December 2009 methylmethcathinone, 2-fluoromethamphetamine, a-phthalimidopropiophenone and N-ethylcathi-

Available online xxx none, all of which were unlisted within South Australian controlled substance regulations. We examined

the relevant scientific literature surrounding these chemicals and present both GCMS and NMR data for

4-methylmethcathinone and a-phthalimidopropiophenone, which have previously received little

attention. We also present the vapour- and condensed-phase infrared spectra (IR) of 4-methylmeth-

cathinone as these have also not been reported in the literature previously. We discuss the issues

surrounding whether these chemicals can be classified as controlled substance analogues and the likely

impact this could have on prosecutions of individuals distributing these products.

 

 

external.pdf

external.pdf

external.pdf

[Torsten]

you've got a wealth of references here, but I am still not sure what you are trying to get at. While the federal analogues clauses are definitely the broadest, the state ones are quite broad as well. I am not all that familiar with TAS law, but have you actually had a look at the TAS analogues law? methylone really is not that different from the other substances mentioned and I would be very surprised if ANY state analogues law in australia didn't catch it comfortably.

edit:

OK, I am surprised. had a look at Tas law and there is no broad analogues clause. The legislation names groups of analogues within the schedule, but they have to conform to certain groups only. This is where it gets interesting becuasde ther eis no group around methcathinone/cathinone. So the nearest group would be the alkoxyamphetamine group, but a ketone is not an amphetamine and as there is nothing to make the definition broader I don't think it can be applied.

There is also the mescalien reference:

3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine (otherwise known as mescaline) and other substances structurally derived from methoxyphenylethylamine and not separately specified in this Schedule except methoxyphenamine

But this is aquite a long way to claim structural derivation, ie the argument could be that tyrosine is just as closely related.

I don't have time to read the whole act so i can't say for sure that there is no analogues clause that goes broader than this, but usually the style of schedule that I am seeing does not indicate a separate analogues clause and thus what you see int he schedule is what you get. I think we may have been a bit quick to dismiss this. Mind you, there is no reason why the state cops can't hand this over to the feds if they felt like it.

[ahura999]

trying to understand what may happen to me if i was arrested in victoria by AFP with 3 kg methylone .

[Torsten]

OK, well, Vic is a very different story. And like you said the hypothetical arrest is by the AFP. So the AFP would be charging you under federal law, not state law. In early 2010 quite a lot of people got busted with personal quantities of methylone and were prosecuted under the federal criminal code act. But thatw as for importation. Are you talkign about importation. I think you really need to start defining the issue a bit better because there has now been a lot of discussion and basically none of it has actually gotten close to the details you are looking for. I mean, why were we even talking about tassie if you want to know about vic? why are we talkign state law if you are talking AFP? etc

After re-reading all your posts I presume the charge is importation and is being brought by the AFP in a federal court, right? Thus it would be under a federal piece of legislation. So, is the charge under the customs act or under the criminal code act? If the latter then which particular section/item?

Did the offender ever take possession of the item? ie could the feds or state cops add a possession charge to the offence?

if it is a federal charge then it doesn't matter what state it is in.

[ahura999]

OK, well, Vic is a very different story. And like you said the hypothetical arrest is by the AFP. So the AFP would be charging you under federal law, not state law. In early 2010 quite a lot of people got busted with personal quantities of methylone and were prosecuted under the federal criminal code act. But thatw as for importation.

Are you talkign about importation

yes i am 3 kg methylone , 6 x 500g packages

I think you really need to start defining the issue a bit better because there has now been a lot of discussion and basically none of it has actually gotten close to the details you are looking for.

This has been somewhat intentionally , dont know the legality of talking specifics whilst under investigation )

I mean, why were we even talking about tassie if you want to know about vic?

This has been the only case i could find relating to any thing close to methylone importation of a reasonably large quantity , in the media

why are we talkign state law if you are talking AFP? etc

i only understood there was a difference after ringing the clerk of the Hobart supreme court and asked was campbell arrested by Tasmanian or federal police

After re-reading all your posts I presume the charge is importation and is being brought by the AFP in a federal court, right?

melbourne magistrates at moment ,hand up brief due on [deleted] committal mention [deleted] Victorian county , i believe .

Thus it would be under a federal piece of legislation. So, is the charge under the customs act or under the criminal code act? If the latter then which particular sect)ion/item?

criminal code 307.3.1

Did the offender ever take possession of the item? ie could the feds or state cops add a possession charge to the offence?

5 charges import border control drug

one charge attempt possesion

if it is a federal charge then it doesn't matter what state it is in.

commonwealth matter

[Torsten]

3 kg methylone , 6 x 500g packages

all at once? or over a period? if the latter then how long a period?

This has been somewhat intentionally , dont know the legality of talking specifics whilst under investigation )

it is best not to identify yourself and obviously you should not make any admissions. anything you say here can be used against you by the prosecution if they are aware of it, which is unlikely. However, simply making enquiries and testing hypotheticals should not cause any problems if done carefully.

This has been the only case i could find relating to any thing close to methylone importation of a reasonably large quantity , in the media

fair enough. Although I think you should divide this into two issues.

1) find other identical cases of methylone importation regardless of quantity so you can establish the chances of successful prosecution.

2) find cases of drug imports of the listed compound that the analogues claim is based on. eg 3kg of mdma or 3kg of methcathinone.

i only understood there was a difference after ringing the clerk of the Hobart supreme court and asked was campbell arrested by Tasmanian or federal police

sorry, it seemed you already had a grasp on these matters so i got a bit confused.

melbourne magistrates at moment ,hand up brief due on [deleted] committal mention [deleted] Victorian county , i believe

I do not actually know how federal cases proceed thorugh the courts, but will check with someone who was charged with the same substance but a much lesser amount. he went through the same system.

criminal code 307.3.1

for everyone else's benefit:

307.3 Importing and exporting border controlled drugs or border controlled plants

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person imports or exports a substance; and

( the substance is a border controlled drug or border controlled plant.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) The fault element for paragraph (1)( is recklessness.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person proves that he or she neither intended, nor believed that another person intended, to sell any of the border controlled drug or any of the border controlled plant or its products.

The schedules list both methcathinone and mdma as border controlled drugs, howeveer from your charge I presume they are using methcathinone as the basis. how do I know this? because if they charged you with mdma analogue you would be looking at 307.1.1 which is life imprisonment as maximum while you are only looking at a maximum of 10 years. This is a huge difference. The reason is that methcathinone is actually the only border controlled drug where no marketable or commercial quantity has been set [don't ask me why]. This means that no matter what quantity, you can only be charged with 307.3.1

It also means you may want to be careful about querying the analogues clause for this case because you may end up with a much heavier charge.

The criminal code act analogues clause is certainly broad enough for them to do whatever they want. It contains part f, which is the real nasty:

(f) otherwise a homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or substance substantially similar in chemical structure;

And if you thought part f was so vague it could never stand up in court you will be disappointed to find out that there are several convictions based on it already.

5 charges import border control drug ....one charge attempt possesion

It sounds intimidating, but the judge usually rolls these things into one or the possession charges get dropped by the prosecution at the start of the court case.

My take on this:

get a very good lawyer and plead guilty. the methylone analogue will stick and the most you could do is have it upgraded to a commercial quantity charge by having it changed to a different reference compound. I can't see how you will not do some jail time, but the amount will depend on your lawyer and luck of the day. anything between 6 months and 2 years is likely, but more is certainly possible if you don't make a good case. Do you have any priors? Do you have dependents? job? career? Judges don't like to fuck up good lives, so if you have kids and a career then things will go better than if you are single and living the high life.

Pleading not guilty will automatically increase the penalties as courts don't like to be taken for a ride. sometimes it can be quite substantial so consider it carefully.

[ahura999]

3 kg methylone , 6 x 500g packages

all at once? or over a period? if the latter then how long a period?

all over a week period to different addresses

This has been somewhat intentionally , dont know the legality of talking specifics whilst under investigation )

it is best not to identify yourself and obviously you should not make any admissions. anything you say here can be used against you by the prosecution if they are aware of it, which is unlikely. However, simply making enquiries and testing hypotheticals should not cause any problems if done carefully.

This has been the only case i could find relating to any thing close to methylone importation of a reasonably large quantity , in the media

fair enough. Although I think you should divide this into two issues.

1) find other identical cases of methylone importation regardless of quantity so you can establish the chances of successful prosecution.

2) find cases of drug imports of the listed compound that the analogues claim is based on. eg 3kg of mdma or 3kg of methcathinone.

i only understood there was a difference after ringing the clerk of the Hobart supreme court and asked was campbell arrested by Tasmanian or federal police

sorry, it seemed you already had a grasp on these matters so i got a bit confused.

melbourne magistrates at moment ,hand up brief due on [deleted] committal mention [deleted] Victorian county , i believe

I do not actually know how federal cases proceed thorugh the courts, but will check with someone who was charged with the same substance but a much lesser amount. he went through the same system.

criminal code 307.3.1

for everyone else's benefit:

307.3 Importing and exporting border controlled drugs or border controlled plants

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person imports or exports a substance; and

(b ) the substance is a border controlled drug or border controlled plant.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both.

(2) The fault element for paragraph (1)( b ) is recklessness.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person proves that he or she neither intended, nor believed that another person intended, to sell any of the border controlled drug or any of the border controlled plant or its products.

The schedules list both methcathinone and mdma as border controlled drugs, howeveer from your charge I presume they are using methcathinone as the basis. how do I know this? because if they charged you with mdma analogue you would be looking at 307.1.1 which is life imprisonment as maximum while you are only looking at a maximum of 10 years. This is a huge difference. The reason is that methcathinone is actually the only border controlled drug where no marketable or commercial quantity has been set [don't ask me why]. This means that no matter what quantity, you can only be charged with 307.3.1

It also means you may want to be careful about querying the analogues clause for this case because you may end up with a much heavier charge.

The criminal code act analogues clause is certainly broad enough for them to do whatever they want. It contains part f, which is the real nasty:

(f) otherwise a homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or substance substantially similar in chemical structure;

And if you thought part f was so vague it could never stand up in court you will be disappointed to find out that there are several convictions based on it already.

5 charges import border control drug ....one charge attempt possesion

It sounds intimidating, but the judge usually rolls these things into one or the possession charges get dropped by the prosecution at the start of the court case.

My take on this:

get a very good lawyer and plead guilty. the methylone analogue will stick and the most you could do is have it upgraded to a commercial quantity charge by having it changed to a different reference compound. I can't see how you will not do some jail time, but the amount will depend on your lawyer and luck of the day. anything between 6 months and 2 years is likely, but more is certainly possible if you don't make a good case. Do you have any priors? Do you have dependents? job? career? Judges don't like to fuck up good lives, so if you have kids and a career then things will go better than if you are single and living the high life.

Pleading not guilty will automatically increase the penalties as courts don't like to be taken for a ride. sometimes it can be quite substantial so consider it carefully.

 

thanks my brother , you've helped me to understand things a whole lot clearer

Edited March 10, 2011 by ahura999

[ahura999]

Next , what if the person had ordered a 50g sample that was detected by dogs and or xray ,opened by AQIS/CUSTOMS , then released back to them (sent to their address), as nothing of concern with two nice little pamphlets ,

Re ; prohibited imports .

which they said this package wasnt/isnt ,of concern, nor prohibited. (it was methylone)

So, then , after receiving the sample package back from AQIS/CUSTOMS , that was detected , opened , presumably tested by AQIS/customs (somehow , you would imagine , marquis ), resealed , and forwarded on , they then asked customs/police/lawyer on the phone whether or not it was ok to order more , given the green light , they then ordered 3kg , they were then arrested , this has to be something that is looked at , agreed ?

Edited March 10, 2011 by ahura999

[ahura999]

as no-one wants to break the law ! well not i anyway .

[tripsis]

Good luck mate, it sounds like you're going to need it. Hope you have an exceptionally good lawyer.

[Torsten]

Next , what if the person had ordered a 50g sample that was detected by dogs and or xray ,opened by AQIS/CUSTOMS , then released back to them (sent to their address), as nothing of concern with two nice little pamphlets ,

So, then , after receiving the sample package back from AQIS/CUSTOMS , that was detected , opened , presumably tested by AQIS/customs (somehow , you would imagine , marquis ), resealed , and forwarded on , they then asked customs/police/lawyer on the phone whether or not it was ok to order more , given the green light , they then ordered 3kg , they were then arrested , this has to be something that is looked at , agreed ?

 

if you plead guilty the your focus needs to be on how to minimise the penalty you receive. Demonstrating that you were totally unaware of the illegality and that you had good reason to believe that it was legel will help greatly in sentencing. It will not however get you off the hook. The article you are charged with also says that the guilt element is recklessness. ie ignorance will not protect you from the penalty. It should however prompt the judge to be lenient.

There is a bit of info above that needs to be confirmed.

1) was it customs or quarantine that opened the parcel. what colour tape was on it. do you have the pamphlet?

2) Do you have any proof such as the packaging or even a witness?

3) Do you have any proof about asking customs, lawyer etc about the legal status? Phone records, letters, etc?

I don't think any of this will justify a not-guilty plea, but it could provide for a slap on the wrist type sentence such as a 3 year bond etc. You would need really good evidence for that though as this is obviously how most people try to get off and the courts know this.

[ahura999]

if you plead guilty the your focus needs to be on how to minimise the penalty you receive. Demonstrating that you were totally unaware of the illegality and that you had good reason to believe that it was legel will help greatly in sentencing. It will not however get you off the hook. The article you are charged with also says that the guilt element is recklessness. ie ignorance will not protect you from the penalty. It should however prompt the judge to be lenient.

There is a bit of info above that needs to be confirmed.

1) was it customs or quarantine that opened the parcel. When i called they said they work together , shoulder to shoulder .

what colour tape was on it. Yellow tape , do you have the pamphlet ? yes

When i consulted Customs at Customs Headquarters Melb , they said that they AQIS & CUSTOMS worked together , ie if AQIS open a package that is powder substance , they would pass automatically to customs officer next to them in the aust post mail centre .

2) Do you have any proof such as the packaging or even a witness?

Yes , witness (may not want to be in court though) and photocopies of the packaging,pamphlets (not the originals) and EMS tracking No for the item

(AQIS/CUSTOMS) said that i or my lawyer could apply and request any documents pertaining to the opening of the item

( EE--------------CN)

3) Do you have any proof about asking customs, lawyer etc about the legal status? Phone records, letters, etc?

No

I don't think any of this will justify a not-guilty plea, but it could provide for a slap on the wrist type sentence such as a 3 year bond etc. You would need really good evidence for that though as this is obviously how most people try to get off and the courts know this.

 

[Thelema]

Lets be clear on the issues involved:

1) A gets busted with methcathinone. Fair cop.

2) A little while earlier A got a letter from customs AND Quarantine, received the 50g of methacathinone goods, telling him nice letters of concern [EVIDIDENCE A] WHY DIDN'T THEY MENTION THEN IT'S ILLEGALITY?->Q1

Obviously they made an assessment [EVIDENCE2] and released it. Obviously its assesment of illegality was not obvious enough at that level to involve further legal sophistication.-Q2!

3) A contacts customs and Q asking for further clarification, due to more importation. They give him the green light.

[Evidence 3]-purportedly non-existent, but maybe telephone calls are recorded or logs are made of requests, If this telephone call really was made then this is pure gold as evidence and you or you lawyer should do as much as they can to subpoena such evidence including recorded phone logs or people on the night advising you of this. Don't let this one go, beauracracies are there for a reason, and they have to be accountable to themselves in terms of record-keeping. Even better if a witness was there while you were on the phone having the conversation!

The basic rule is, there is no mistake of law. It is simply not a defence. But you could argue quite persuasively that you had been induced by the relevant beauracracies that this indeed was OK FOR YOU to import, and that you went to reasonable lengths by contacting them to insure that.(providing you come up with that evidence-even a full bill from you telecom agent showing you called that number on that night could make a real difference in terms of jailtime)

Finally, never open a package containing dubious good that are sent to your house. Wait at least 30 days from delivery. ONE CAN ALSO DENY EVER HAVING REQUESTED THE GOODS, BUT this would not have to show on any of your bankstatements etc. But can and has been an effective way out for some: eg: the website said I was buying plantfood: I had no idea that it was something ridiculousy illegal! But Watch OUt! This would involve a notguilty plea which carries risks of it's own, as Torsten said.

[PhoenixSon]

interesting read