Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Legal experts are warning that, despite pill testing services designed to keep people alive, the laws behind drug possession remain as prominent as ever.
With peak festival season in Australia creeping up and pill testing becoming a permanent fixture in NSW following a successful 12-month trial, experienced lawyers have reinforced that the pill testing service does not make drugs legal at such events.
Astor Legal’s principal lawyer, Avinash Singh, is one of those experts who have warned on this, recognising that the drug laws have not changed, despite the emergence of pill testing booths.
Singh warned that the distinction is integral because nothing has been altered in the drug laws.
“The introduction of permanent pill testing does not legalise illicit drugs,” Singh said.
“Instead, there is a directive that police will not conduct operations at those music festivals where pill testing takes place.
“It includes the queue and the gate as well. Effectively, police will not be enforcing laws relating to illicit drugs at any music festival where pill testing is occurring.”
That said, festivalgoers have been warned that someone can still be charged following the usage of the pill testing service, but it remains anonymous.
“Police still have the power to charge a person after using the service; however, there is an agreement that they will not do this,” Singh said.
“Police will not be exercising their search powers in respect of illicit drugs at these music festivals.
“The pill testing stations are all anonymous, so there will not be any record of a person’s name or personal details.
“This means that even if police or a coroner wanted to compel the production of samples or records, it would not be linked to any person who attended a pill testing station.”
Singh highlighted that the statutory meaning of drug supply accounts for a much wider scope than generally understood, noting that the distribution of money is not required to constitute an offence.
“Under section 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, supply includes selling and distributing, but also agreeing to supply, offering to supply, or keeping or having in possession for supply,” Singh said.
Singh referred to a Supreme Court decision handed down this year that provided closure on the ambiguous sniffer dog laws.
“The recent Supreme Court decision of Meredith v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1133 held that a sniffer dog detection alone is not a sufficient basis for police to form a reasonable suspicion to search a person,” Singh said.
“The Supreme Court referred to the NSW Police Force’s own records, which showed that an indication by a sniffer dog generally only leads to drugs being detected in 30 per cent of cases.
“Under section 21 of LEPRA, police may stop, search and detain a person without a warrant only if they suspect on reasonable grounds that the person has a prohibited drug.”
If someone is stopped or arrested, Singh noted that the right to remain silent can be imposed; however, there is an exception, which involves phone usage.
“If police stop or arrest you, then you are required to provide your name and address; you have a right to silence in respect of any other information,” Singh said.
“The only exception is if police obtain a Digital Evidence Access Order pursuant to section 76AJ of LEPRA.
“This gives police the power to force you to provide the password to your electronic devices, such as your phone or computer.”
Regarding any potential charges, Singh indicated that minor possession is often sorted out, without the need for a court appearance; however, the maximum penalties across the country can be quite severe.
“In most states, there are drug diversion programs which can be used to avoid criminal convictions for minor drug possession offences,” Singh said.
“In NSW, police will usually issue an infringement rather than a court attendance notice if a person possesses a small quantity of drugs at a music festival.”
“This means the person does not have to attend court and does not receive a criminal record.
“Most states also have sentencing options which allow the court not to record a conviction against a person if they plead guilty to a minor drug possession offence.
“Supply is a different matter entirely with maximum penalties ranging from 15 years imprisonment up to life, depending on the quantity and the state.”
