Drug Trafficking Lawyers - Queensland

Drug Trafficking

Section 5 Drugs Misuse Act (Qld)

Get informed about the law, defences, and penalties in Queensland

Drug trafficking, or ‘trafficking in dangerous drugs’ as the offence is described in Queensland, is a serious criminal offence. Trafficking in dangerous drugs is generally punishable by actual imprisonment, although other penalties are possible. In Queensland, the maximum penalty for carrying on the business of unlawful trafficking is 25 years’ imprisonment.

Legal Disclaimer

Page Contents


Drug Trafficking

Anderson Legal defends individuals facing criminal allegations relating to violent offences and misconduct.


On-Demand Resources

View our growing library of articles and webinars, which are accessible no matter the time of day or night.


Free Consultation

Anderson Legal provides a free, no-obligation consultation to understand whether this firm can assist you.


Drug Trafficking

Anderson Legal defends individuals facing criminal allegations relating to violent offences and misconduct.

On-Demand Resources

View our growing library of articles and webinars, which are accessible no matter the time of day or night.

Free Consultation

Anderson Legal provides a free, no-obligation consultation to understand whether this firm can assist you.

Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug

Before you can properly defend yourself against an allegation of any kind, you need to understand it.
This section deals with the following:
Criminal Defence Image

Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug

Before you can properly defend yourself against an allegation of any kind, you need to understand it.
This section deals with the following:
Criminal Defence Image

Queensland Law

Section 5 Drugs Misuse Act (Qld)

Section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld) makes trafficking in dangerous drugs an offence in Queensland. The law states:

Trafficking in dangerous drugs

(1) A person who carries on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug is guilty of a crime. Maximum penalty—25 years imprisonment.

(2) The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 161Q states a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.

(3) An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.

Section 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 refers to the ‘serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation’, which mandates a significant mandatory minimum imprisonment in addition to any other penalty. It targets people who commit a drug trafficking offence in association with being a participant of a criminal organisation.

Relevant Definitions

Definition: Unlawfully

The meaning of the word ‘unlawfully’ is defined in section 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld):

unlawfully means without authorisation, justification or excuse by law.

Definition: Dangerous Drug

Section 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld) defines ‘dangerous drug’ to mean:

dangerous drug means—

(a) a thing stated in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 1 or 2; or

(b) any part of a plant that is a thing stated in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 1 or 2; or

(c) a derivative or stereo-isomer of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(d) a salt of a thing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c); or

(e) an analogue of a thing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (d); or

(f) a thing that has, or is intended to have, a pharmacological effect of a thing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (e); or

Note— See also section 4BA for when a thing is intended to have a pharmacological effect of a thing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

(g) a thing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) that is contained in—

(i) a natural substance; or

(ii) a preparation, solution or admixture.

Meaning of ‘carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking’

The term ‘carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking’ is not defined in the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld). As such, to understand the meaning it is important to understand how courts have interpreted it. In R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, the word ‘trafficking’ was stated to mean “knowingly engaging in the movement of drugs from source to ultimate user”. To that end, it is possible to be knowingly engaged in the movement of drugs from source to ultimate user without “carrying on the business” of trafficking. For instance, a person may supply a dangerous drug to another person without it being classified as carrying on the business of trafficking. For that reason, proof that a person was “carrying on the business” of trafficking is critical to proof of the charge. In R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, it was stated with respect to the term “carrying on the business”:

Carrying on business, particularly where the subject matter of that business is goods or services, usually involves a series of activities, such as advertising or promoting the “product” by communicating with prospective buyers; setting up lines of supply; negotiating prices and terms of supply and payment; soliciting and receiving orders, arranging for places and times of delivery, and so on. Such activities are the res acta or res gestae of business and the indicia of its carrying on. Invariably they involve conversations because it is scarcely possible to carry on business without communication of some kind. Evidence of the content of such conversation is, however, admitted not to prove the truth of the matter communicated but rather to establish the fact that it was said or stated. It may on occasions be positively untrue, as where a false representation is made concerning the quality of goods to be supplied. Misrepresentations are, regrettably, a not infrequent concomitant of some businesses; but they none the less form part of its carrying on. Such and other statements, conversations and communications, as well as associated physical acts or conduct, are admitted as original evidence of the carrying on of business.

Drug Trafficking: Elements

For every criminal charge in Queensland, there are ‘elements’ that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove just one element means the person charged must be found not guilty. Sometimes there will be an alternative offence that a person may then be found guilty of instead if proof of the primary charge fails.

For a drug trafficking case in Queensland, the prosecution sets out to prove that (1) the person charged (2) carried on the business of (3) unlawfully (4) trafficking in a (5) dangerous drug. Whether one or more of these elements is a real issue in a trial will depend on the circumstances of the case. For instance, a prosecution case based only on intercepted communications may involve no question of identity, but it may be disputed that any conversations concerned drugs. In other cases, there may be no dispute that there is evidence of drug trafficking, however the person charged disputes that they were involved in carrying on the business, if at all.

One matter the prosecution does not need to prove is the particular dangerous drug in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Section 129(1)(b) allows a person to be convicted as charged provided there is sufficient proof that “the thing to which the charge relates was at the material time a dangerous drug”. This allows the police and prosecutors to bring drug trafficking cases on circumstantial evidence alone without the need to specify that the trafficking concerned ‘heroin’, ‘methylamphetamine’, ‘cannabis’, or some other dangerous drug.

In cases where multiple defendants are charged, Queensland law makes it possible for more than one person to be found guilty of the same offence. For instance, a person may be found guilty if they aided or encouraged another person in an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

In reviewing an individual case, the work of a criminal lawyer often begins with a careful analysis of the evidence to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case and, in particular, its ability to prove each element of the offence.


Possible Defences

The ‘presumption of innocence’

When people think about a ‘defence’ to a charge, such as trafficking in a dangerous drug, they are generally thinking about what makes them ‘not guilty’ of the offence. However, it is for the prosecution to prove they are guilty – and to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence means that the defendant carries no onus of proof. What that means in practical terms is that it is for the prosecution to disprove any defences raised on the evidence.

For drug trafficking charges, the prosecution must not only prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, it must also disprove all defences that may apply beyond reasonable doubt. However, as is outlined below, the Drugs Misuse Act (Qld) does create some modifications as to the onus of proof for some defences, which can impact how a particular defence may be established.

How are defences raised on the evidence?

A defence may be raised on the evidence of both the prosecution and the defence. That is, people who give witness statements to police may indicate that an event occurred accidentally, or a person appeared to act in self-defence. Generally speaking, the prosecution have an obligation to call all material witnesses at a trial – even those unfavourable to its case. Alternatively, a person charged with an offence may also call their own witnesses at a trial, which may provide the basis for a defence to be raised.

One of the important roles of a criminal lawyer is to identify, as early as possible, the relevant defences that may apply in a given case. The reason it is important to do it as early as possible is to ensure relevant witnesses are found while matters are freshest in their mind, or to prevent other evidence being lost or destroyed.

Common defences for ‘trafficking in a dangerous drug’

The law requires the prosecution to prove that the charge was committed ‘unlawfully’. That means if the prosecution cannot disprove the act or omission was authorised, justified or excused by law, the person charged must be found not guilty.

Some defences available under the Criminal Code (Qld) do not apply to drug trafficking, and others, such as compulsion or extraordinary emergency, may only arise in exceptional circumstances. A common issue in cases involving drug charges is whether the person charged had an honest and reasonable but mistaken fact about the thing found in their possession. Such issues possibly give rise to a defence of ‘mistake of fact’ under section 24 of the Criminal Code (noting that defence is qualified by s. 129(1)(d) of the Drugs Misuse Act). The Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Duong [2015] QCA 170 determined that for a mistake of fact defence to apply, it cannot be a belief that the person charged was simply dealing with a different, potentially less serious form of, dangerous drug. That is, it is only if a person establishes a belief that they were not in possession of any dangerous drug that they may be acquitted due to a defence of ‘mistake of fact’.

Amongst the most important advice a lawyer can provide is whether or not a defence applies to an individual case. In some cases, multiple defences may apply. In others, no defence may be considered viable. Certain defences cannot operate together. For this reason, anybody facing a charge of drug trafficking should seek early, authoritative advice from an experienced criminal lawyer to understand their legal position.


Possible Penalties

Maximum Penalty

The maximum penalty for trafficking in dangerous drugs in Queensland is 25 years’ imprisonment.

Minimum Penalty

While many offences under Queensland law do not carry mandatory minimum sentences, drug trafficking does when a person is convicted of the following circumstance of aggravation:

  1. When a person is convicted of committing the offence and the serious organised crime circumstance of aggravation applies, 7 years’ imprisonment is automatically imposed cumulatively on the sentence the court decides. The 7 years’ imprisonment must be served wholly in prison, on top of whatever other penalty is set by the court.

Sentencing in Queensland

For a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) sets out a range of relevant sentencing considerations. For a drug offence, the law states that the court must have regard to the following considerations:

(a) principles that—

(i) a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort; and

(ii) a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable; and

(b) the maximum and any minimum penalty prescribed for the offence; and

(c) the nature of the offence and how serious the offence was, including—

(i) any physical, mental or emotional harm done to a victim, including harm mentioned in information relating to the victim given to the court under section 179K; and

(ii) the effect of the offence on any child under 16 years who may have been directly exposed to, or a witness to, the offence; and

(d) the extent to which the offender is to blame for the offence; and

(e) any damage, injury or loss caused by the offender; and

(f) the offender’s character, age and intellectual capacity; and

(g) the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender; and (ga) without limiting paragraph (g), whether the offender was a participant in a criminal organisation—

(i) at the time the offence was committed; or

(ii) at any time during the course of the commission of the offence; and

(h) the prevalence of the offence; and

(i) how much assistance the offender gave to law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or other offences; and

(j) time spent in custody by the offender for the offence before being sentenced; and

(k) sentences imposed on, and served by, the offender in another State or a Territory for an offence committed at, or about the same time, as the offence with which the court is dealing; and

(l) sentences already imposed on the offender that have not been served; and

(m) sentences that the offender is liable to serve because of the revocation of orders made under this or another Act for contraventions of conditions by the offender; and

(n) if the offender is the subject of a community based order—the offender’s compliance with the order as disclosed in an oral or written report given by an authorised corrective services officer; and

(o) if the offender is on bail and is required under the offender’s undertaking to attend a rehabilitation, treatment or other intervention program or course—the offender’s successful completion of the program or course; and

(p) if the offender is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person—any submissions made by a representative of the community justice group in the offender’s community that are relevant to sentencing the offender, including, for example—

(i) the offender’s relationship to the offender’s community; or

(ii) any cultural considerations; or

(iii) any considerations relating to programs and services established for offenders in which the community justice group participates; and

(q) anything else prescribed by this Act to which the court must have regard; and

(r) any other relevant circumstance.

Due to the number of issues that can aggravate or mitigate the punishment imposed by a court, experience shows that the earlier a person facing a charge obtains sound advice from an experienced lawyer, the better their chance of securing the best outcome possible for their situation.

Possible Outcomes

Leaving aside any mandatory minimum penalties that may apply, punishment for drug trafficking charges generally involve sentences of imprisonment. In some cases, immediate parole or a full suspension of imprisonment may be possible. In other cases, a person may see the offence deemed a ‘serious violent offence’ by the court, which mandates an offender serve 80% of the imprisonment before they are eligible for release.

In R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, the major determinants of sentencing outcomes were summarised at paragraph [29]:

Major determinants of penalty in trafficking cases include the type of drugs supplied, the quantity of the drugs, their value, the nature of the venture or undertaking, and whether the activities are commercial or are engaged in to feed a habit. In all cases, however, regard must be had to the maximum penalties imposed by statute and the recognition by the Legislature and the courts that the purveying of drugs of the nature of those under consideration, however motivated, has the potential to cause much individual suffering, as well as social harm and decay.

In some cases, a charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs may be substituted for, or charged in addition to, other drug offences. The prosecution may determine that a less serious charge may be appropriate, based on the evidence. Related drug offences include:


Expert Criminal Defence

Although based in Brisbane, Anderson Legal is frequently engaged to defend people facing criminal allegations across Queensland. If you are dealing with trafficking in dangerous drugs charge and need expert representation from a leading criminal lawyer in Queensland, Anderson Legal offers comprehensive criminal defence services for its clients. This includes:

  • providing advice relating to allegations made or documents served on our clients;
  • identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the case alleged against our clients;
  • advising clients on options relating to obtaining evidence, including expert evidence;
  • communicating on behalf of its clients with police, courts, and others;
  • resolving, where appropriate, criminal charges through negotiation;
  • representing clients in trials and sentences before all courts; and,
  • filing and litigating appeals against wrongful convictions and unjust sentences.

This firm places an emphasis on providing clear guidance so that our clients are placed in a real position to make informed decisions about their options and their preferred path forward. Anderson Legal provides clear, transparent disclosure of its legal costs at every stage.

  • Andrew Anderson, Legal Director, is an award-winning lawyer who has been independently described by the Courier Mail as “one of the best legal minds” and a “leading corporate and white-collar crime lawyer” (16 December 2021).
  • Having successfully represented litigants in the High Court of Australia, Queensland Court of Appeal, Royal Commissions, and multiple other courts dealing with trials and other hearings, Andrew Anderson has a demonstrated record of success in complex and difficult cases.
  • Prior to operating a law firm, Andrew Anderson worked as a Principal Crown Prosecutor in Queensland and barrister in private practice at 8 Petrie Terrace Chambers in Brisbane. His depth of courtroom advocacy experience ranges from straightforward cases right through to complex homicide trials and appeals.
  • Anderson Legal is a law firm that is dedicated to the best ideals of the legal profession. Seeking to exceed client expectations and fighting for justice is an everyday pursuit.

Limitations on general information

Each legal issue is unique. The information on this page and website cannot – and is not meant to – substitute legal consultation. It is designed to outline information of a general nature if you want to learn more about drug trafficking charges, particularly as it relates to anybody facing an issue of this kind in Queensland. Anybody dealing with a drug trafficking charge ought to obtain expert legal advice and guidance as soon as possible.

No content accessible on the website is created to provide specific legal answers or advice. It is designed to provide general information about legal matters and related concepts. It should not be used as, or in substitute of, your own legal advice or other advice as appropriate.

To the extent allowed by law, no warranty, condition, or guarantee is provided in relation to the accuracy or reliability of any information contained on this site. Content may be changed from time to time without notice.

If you face a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug, contact Anderson Legal. This firm provides expert advice and representation for people needing assistance to defend themselves against unjust accusations.

For more information, read our Terms of Use

On-Demand Resources

View below the on-demand resources of this firm.

On-Demand Resources

View below the on-demand resources of this firm.
On-Demand Resources

On-Demand Resources

ImageTitleOverviewcategories_hfiltertags_hfilter
Responding to Unfair Written Warnings at WorkIn Australia, employers may issue a written warning to ensure procedural fairness. The failure to give employees a chance to fix underperformance or some misconduct can see successful unfair dismissal claims made against employers. An unfair written warning may afford no protection against an unfair dismissal claim.Viewdisciplinary-processes employment-lawwritten-warnings
Responding to a Workplace Investigation into Bullying ComplaintsFacing a workplace investigation into a workplace bullying complaint can leave people feeling stressed, uncertain and isolated. Getting informed about how you may respond to a workplace bullying complaint, as well as your rights, responsibilities and options is essential for anybody facing an issue of this kind.Viewemployment-lawworkplace-bullying workplace-investigations
Responding to a Show Cause LetterA show cause letter is meant to provide an employee with an opportunity to explain (show cause) why they should not face disciplinary action within the workplace. The failure to give employees a chance to 'show cause' why the disciplinary action is unjustified can see decisions overturned or compensation awarded.Viewdisciplinary-processes employment-lawshow-cause-letters
Responding to a Workplace Investigation into Sexual HarassmentSexual harassment complaints often result in formal workplace investigations. Generally, Australian laws define sexual harassment as involving (1) unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature; (2) the conduct leaves the person feeling offended, humiliated or intimidated; and, (3) the reaction of the person is reasonable in the circumstances.Viewemployment-lawsexual-harassment workplace-investigations
Responding to False Bullying Allegations at WorkMany people who face bullying complaints at work are managers in one form or another. However described, executives, managers, or small business owners all have as part of their role the task of managing the conduct and performance of others. It is not uncommon for performance management issues to lead to allegations of bullying.Viewemployment-law workplace-bullyingfalse-allegations
Responding to False Sexual Harassment Allegations at WorkAnybody who believes they are subject to false or wrongful sexual harassment allegations should get urgent legal advice due to the potential consequences of such claims. Employers may be vicariously liable for sexual harassment that occurs in a workplace unless they have taken "all reasonable steps" to prevent it.Viewemployment-law sexual-harassmentfalse-allegations

Free Consultation

Free Consultation

Free Consultation

Can We Help?

It costs nothing but time to see if we are the right firm for you case. Contact us to see if this firm can assist you.

This firm offers a ‘free consultation’. The reason is simple – it shouldn’t cost anything for a person to pick up the phone and understand if a particular law firm can help them or not. Anderson Legal takes the time necessary to understand the issues and to determine if we are in a real position to provide the standard of advice and representation you are entitled to expect.

Our Clients

Our clients make our practice. They are the ones we worry about each day, and to whom we owe a great obligation.

Our clients often have sought out Anderson Legal because they have been told something about expertise and experience. They put their faith and trust in the work of this firm. Professional reputation follows reality and not the other way around. Andrew Anderson, Legal Director, offers our clients a proven track record of success in complex and difficult cases across all court levels, including multiple appeals before the High Court of Australia.

Our Focus

Justice is best served by lawyers who are focused on their clients and not their competitors. The primary interest of this law firm is justice in the interests of its clients. Whilst we provide premium services at highly competitive rates, it is not about undercutting our competitors. It is simply a function of our real focus – you.

Cost Comparisons

Comparing lawyers is not just a question of price, but value. Backed by the experience of successful courtroom advocacy across Australia, this firm offers significant value to its clients beyond price.
It is notoriously difficult to compare lawyers. Past courtroom experience and outcomes achieved do provide some basis for comparison. Andrew Anderson has an enviable record of success in contested hearings, trials and appeals.

You may find other principal lawyers charge 50% (or more) above the hourly rates of the principal lawyer of this firm, but that may not be the most important measure of value. When you face a legal issue, particularly a complex one, there are other issues to consider.

As a lawyer who has achieved significant outcomes in a variety of contexts – as a Principal Crown Prosecutor, as a barrister, and as a law firm principal – Andrew Anderson brings a different level of experience to his advice and representation as compared to most solicitors. While he routinely works with leading Queens Counsel and other specialist barristers in complex cases, his significant experience in litigating and resolving disputes in cases throughout Australia means his clients have genuine expertise available from the start.

This firm may use several fee options, either exclusively or at various stages. The purpose is to make legal fees predictable, understandable, and transparent. Options include ‘fixed fee’ agreements, ‘capped’ legal costs, and agreements where the costs are calculated on a ‘pay as you go’ basis.

Entering into costs agreements that are understandable, and transparent allows this firm to remain focused on the outcomes our clients seek.

Our Referrals

If, unfortunately, we cannot provide you advice or representation, we will probably know who can.

The areas of law this practice handles are deliberately narrow and deep. Our deep focus on select areas of law allows this firm to handle some of the most complex and challenging cases that come before the courts.

It is not uncommon for this firm to receive enquiries we know will be better handled by others. In the interests of maintaining the highest standards, there are also occasions when cases we would otherwise welcome are declined to focus on existing clients’ needs. In such instances, we will try to identify who may be in a position to assist you.