For two years, a person in Bankstown, the Orana Mid-Western area, Coffs-Clarence or the Hunter Valley could be searched by police without a warrant if a Drug Supply Prohibition Order was in force against them.
However, that order could be based on a serious drug conviction from the previous 10 years. Importantly, it also did not require police to suspect that the person had committed a new offence before conducting the search.
The scheme ran from May 2022 until May 2024, and the Act was then repealed from 17 May 2025.
What makes the scheme worth revisiting is that the underlying policy idea, attaching ongoing consequences to a past conviction, continues to appear in other areas of the law in NSW.
What was a Drug Supply Prohibition Order?
A Drug Supply Prohibition Order, or DSPO, was a court order made against a person who met the statutory eligibility requirements.
While a DSPO was in force, section 4 of the Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Act 2020 allowed police, within a pilot scheme area, to stop, detain and search the person without a warrant. In some cases it also allowed police to enter and search the person’s dwelling and search certain premises and vehicles.
However, the power was not an unrestricted authority to search anywhere, any time. Some premises and vehicles could be searched only where the officer reasonably suspected that the statutory conditions existed. Yet the scheme removed the ordinary requirement to obtain a warrant for the searches authorised by section 4.
The Act commenced on 16 May 2022 and a DSPO could remain in force for up to two years.
A person was eligible if they were at least 18 and had been convicted of a serious drug offence under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 within the previous 10 years. The relevant offences included specified cultivation, manufacture and supply offences. Simple possession, by itself, did not qualify.
The Law Society raised concerns during the 2020 debate about the breadth of the criteria. In particular, in the way in which a young adult with a qualifying earlier conviction could be exposed to the same search powers as a person with a much longer history of serious drug offending.
The order did not depend on police having evidence of a fresh offence. In that sense, it attached consequences to the person’s previous conviction rather than to new evidence about their current conduct.
Where did it apply?
The pilot operated in four designated police areas:
- Bankstown Police Area Command.
- Coffs-Clarence Police District.
- Hunter Valley Police District.
- Orana Mid-Western Police District.
The scheme was therefore not a state-wide power. “Dubbo” is sometimes used as shorthand for the Orana Mid-Western trial area, but Orana Mid-Western was the relevant statutory police district.
Over the two-year pilot, police made 27 applications for DSPOs. Magistrates granted 15, and 12 of those orders resulted in at least one search.
The pilot in numbers
| Result | Number |
|---|---|
| DSPO applications made | 27 |
| Orders granted | 15 |
| Orders resulting in at least one search | 12 |
| Warrantless DSPO searches | 58 |
| Premises searches | 25 |
| Person searches | 21 |
| Vehicle searches | 12 |
| Charges laid | 79 |
| People subject to those charges | 9 |
| Drug-supply charges | 17 |
| Drug-supply charges with proven outcomes | 4 |
Source: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, A process evaluation of the Drug Supply Prohibition Order (DSPO) pilot scheme, Crime and Justice Bulletin 267, published 12 February 2025.
What did the evaluation find?
BOCSAR concluded that there was insufficient evidence from the pilot to determine whether DSPOs had a meaningful impact on drug supply or manufacture. That is not to say the scheme failed. It just means the pilot produced too little evidence to show whether the extraordinary powers achieved their intended purpose.
The charge mix is revealing. Drug-supply offences accounted for around one-fifth of the 79 charges. Drug-use and possession offences accounted for 32%, proceeds-of-crime offences for 23%, and firearms or weapons offences for 13%.
Only four of the 17 drug-supply charges resulted in a proven outcome. Around 40% of all charges were proven in court, and nearly half were withdrawn. Most proven outcomes related to drug use or possession rather than drug supply.
A scheme designed primarily to disrupt drug supply therefore produced more possession and use outcomes than supply outcomes.
BOCSAR also identified practical problems, including:
- the restriction to four police commands,
- overlap with firearms prohibition orders covering some of the same people,
- delays in the application process,
- uncertainty about the scheme’s purpose and
- a lack of clarity about the people the scheme was intended to target.
The evaluation also recorded that most stakeholders considered the scheme to have been operating as intended. However, BOCSAR said modifications would be needed to improve the efficiency of the application process and the effectiveness of enforcement. Again, that is not to say that the scheme had shown a meaningful reduction in drug supply.
Why did the scheme end?
The DSPO pilot ended in May 2024, after which all DSPOs ceased to apply. The Drug Supply Prohibition Order Pilot Scheme Act 2020 (NSW) was repealed on 17 May 2025.
That distinction matters because the pilot ended first, and the Act was repealed later. There are no DSPOs currently operating under that Act.
The repeal does not necessarily end the policy debate. The evaluation identified possible modifications, including clearer legislation, tighter eligibility criteria, better monitoring and changes to the scheme’s geographic scope.
What happened next?
In 2026, NSW also amended its proceeds-of-crime laws in relation to Drug Trafficker Declarations.
A Drug Trafficker Declaration operates under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, not the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The relevant reforms changed the period in which authorities can apply for a forfeiture order connected with a Drug Trafficker Declaration.
Previously, the application usually had to be made within 12 months after the declaration. The reform allows the application to be made during the declaration’s five-year duration.
The reforms also amended the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 to clarify that “current or previous wealth” can include a service, advantage or benefit provided to a person as a beneficiary of a trust. That does not mean every asset held in, or accessed through, a trust is automatically forfeited.
The DSPO pilot and the proceeds-of-crime reforms are different legal mechanisms. However, they share a broader feature: both attach significant consequences to a person’s previous criminal history, rather than requiring proof of a new offence before the relevant power is engaged.
So the DSPO Act has been repealed, but the wider policy question remains.
Could DSPOs return?
A DSPO-style scheme could be reintroduced through new legislation, although that would require Parliament to create the power again.
The BOCSAR evaluation provides an obvious starting point for any future proposal. It identifies the need for clearer eligibility rules, more consistent administration, better monitoring and a clearer explanation of what the scheme is intended to achieve.
Any future scheme would also need to address the central evidentiary problem identified by BOCSAR. The pilot did not produce enough evidence to determine whether DSPOs had a meaningful impact on drug supply or manufacture.
A replacement scheme could be narrower, broader or materially different. It should not be assumed that a future scheme would simply reproduce the 2022 pilot or extend it beyond the four trial areas.
If you are facing a drug charge
No DSPO is currently in force under the repealed Act. However, the history of the scheme remains relevant if you have a previous drug conviction or are facing a new drug charge in NSW.
A conviction can have consequences beyond the sentence imposed by the court. Depending on the offence and the relevant legislation, it may affect later police powers, proceeds-of-crime proceedings, bail decisions or other legal consequences.
Three practical points follow.
What you plead to matters beyond the sentence. A conviction for supply may create different downstream consequences from a possession conviction. That distinction makes it important to understand the difference between drug supply and possession in NSW at the earliest stage.
Not every police search is automatically lawful. A warrantless power must still satisfy the conditions imposed by the legislation or other source of authority. Issues may include whether the relevant order was valid, whether it was in force, whether the search occurred within the relevant area and whether statutory conditions for searching premises or a vehicle were met.
An unlawful search may raise separate legal issues. Depending on the circumstances, evidence obtained during a search may be challenged in the criminal proceeding. A person may also need advice about whether a separate civil claim is available.
How O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors can help with drug charges
If you are facing a drug charge in NSW, early decisions can affect the way your matter proceeds. Our criminal defence team includes an Accredited Specialist in Criminal Law, and we regularly act in drug supply and trafficking matters involving the validity and lawfulness of police searches.
Request initial advice through the form below or call us on (02) 9261 4281.
Peter O'Brien is the Principal Solicitor of O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors and Australia's leading expert in intentional torts litigation, with over 25 years of experience securing landmark victories in malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment cases. Author of Intentional Tort Litigation in Australia and recipient of the Law Council of Australia President's Medal, Peter has achieved record-breaking compensation for clients and is widely recognised for his unwavering commitment to access to justice.
