Trafficking Dangerous Drugs (Qld)

By James Stevens, Director and Solicitor, Go To Court Lawyers. Last reviewed 14 April 2026.

Under section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, any person who carries on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug in Queensland is guilty of a crime. The maximum penalty for this is 25 years imprisonment for a schedule 1 drug, and 20 years imprisonment for a schedule 2 drug.

Drug trafficking charges represent some of the most serious criminal offences in Queensland's legal system. The consequences extend beyond imprisonment to include substantial fines, criminal records, and significant impacts on employment, travel, and personal relationships. Understanding the complexities of these charges is crucial for anyone facing such allegations.

Schedule 1 drugs

Schedule 1 drugs are more dangerous drugs and possessing or trafficking them carries longer penalties.

Types of Schedule 1 Substances

Schedule 1 drugs include:

• Amphetamines
• Cocaine
• Heroine
• Lysergide (commonly known as LSD)
• Methylamphetamine
• Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (commonly known as MDMA or Ecstasy)

Penalties for Schedule 1 Trafficking

The severe penalties for Schedule 1 drug trafficking reflect the Queensland government's commitment to combating serious drug crimes. Courts consider factors such as the quantity of drugs involved, the defendant's role in the operation, and whether the trafficking was part of a commercial enterprise when determining sentences within the maximum 25-year framework.

Schedule 2 drugs

Schedule 2 drugs are the less dangerous illicit drugs.

Common Schedule 2 Substances

These include:

• Cannabis
• Codeine
• Methadone
• Morphine
• Opium
• Oxycodone.

Legal Implications for Schedule 2 Trafficking

While carrying lighter penalties than Schedule 1 substances, Schedule 2 drug trafficking remains a serious indictable offence. The maximum 20-year imprisonment term reflects the significant harm these substances can cause to individuals and communities. Many pharmaceutical drugs fall into this category when possessed or distributed without proper authorisation.

What is trafficking?

Trafficking generally means selling a drug. However, in the case of R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 42, it was held that trafficking also has a wider meaning of "knowingly engaging in the movement of drugs from source to the ultimate user".

Establishing Trafficking Charges

To establish that a person is guilty of trafficking, it was held in the case of Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 376 that

'it is necessary to show a regularity of drug dealing sufficient to establish that it occurred in the course of a business which might be regarded as trafficking.'

The carrying on of a business is much more than a few isolated transactions. Proof that a person was carrying on a business requires the prosecution to prove several transactions were done for gain over more than a brief interval. The prosecution must also prove that there was some commerciality to the offending.

Trafficking Without Financial Gain

It must be noted that a person can still be charged with trafficking, even if they are not obtaining a financial benefit for themselves. For example, a person can be charged with trafficking to facilitate their own drug addiction. This broad interpretation ensures that various forms of drug distribution are captured under the legislation.

Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

For a successful trafficking conviction, the prosecution must establish several key elements beyond reasonable doubt. Understanding these elements is crucial for mounting an effective defence strategy.

Knowledge and Intent

The prosecution must prove that the accused knew they were dealing with dangerous drugs and intended to engage in trafficking activities. This includes demonstrating awareness of the substance's nature and the deliberate participation in its distribution or supply chain.

Commercial Enterprise

Evidence of a commercial enterprise may include regular customers, established supply chains, substantial quantities of drugs, large amounts of cash, scales, packaging materials, or records of transactions. The prosecution will often present surveillance evidence, financial records, and witness testimony to establish the commercial nature of the alleged trafficking.

Investigation and Police Powers

Queensland police have extensive powers when investigating drug trafficking offences under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. These investigations often involve sophisticated techniques and can span months or years.

Search and Seizure Powers

Police may obtain search warrants to enter premises, seize evidence, and arrest suspects. They can also conduct vehicle searches, use sniffer dogs, and employ surveillance techniques. Understanding these powers and their limitations is essential for identifying potential procedural defences.

Electronic Surveillance and Covert Operations

Drug trafficking investigations frequently involve phone taps, covert recordings, and undercover operations. Evidence obtained through these methods must comply with strict legal requirements, and procedural breaches may provide grounds for excluding evidence or having charges dismissed.

Possible defences

Possible defence to trafficking charges include:

• that the drug found is not a dangerous drug listed in any schedule under the Drugs Misuse Act;
• that they honestly believed the drug was not a dangerous drug;
• That the person was acting under duress;
• That the person has a mental impairment that means that they did not understand the nature of their actions and were not capable of committing a criminal offence.

Procedural Defences

Additional defences may include challenging the legality of police searches, questioning the admissibility of evidence obtained through surveillance, or arguing that proper procedures weren't followed during arrests or interviews. Procedural breaches can sometimes result in evidence being excluded or charges being dismissed.

Lack of Knowledge or Control

Defendants may argue they had no knowledge of the drugs' presence or nature, or that they had no control over