David Speirs, a former leader of the South Australian Liberal Party, faced court proceedings in Adelaide after pleading guilty to drug supply charges. The charges stemmed from incidents in August 2024 when Speirs provided cocaine to two individuals while grappling with stress from his political career.
During a recent court hearing, Speirs, 40, sat quietly, hands clasped in his lap as he listened to the testimony regarding his actions. Defence counsel, William Mickan, argued that the intense pressure of leadership took a toll on Speirs, leading him to seek an escape through cocaine use, a significant departure from his previously healthy coping mechanisms like exercise. He was introduced to cocaine by an acquaintance, using it with friends on multiple occasions as a form of respite from the strains of his role.
Magistrate Brian Nitschke highlighted that the two friends who accompanied Speirs were aware from social media that cocaine might be available during their gatherings. Director of Public Prosecutions Martin Hinton KC expressed that a Member of Parliament’s actions must align with their public duties, stating that Speirs’ behaviour undermines public trust in legislators. He conveyed that there was a degree of hypocrisy in requesting leniency in court.
Mickan described the drug use as an “aberration of character,” asserting that Speirs has otherwise demonstrated admirable conduct throughout his career. Speirs reportedly expressed feelings of betrayal towards his friends, family, and the wider public, and he voluntarily undertook drug tests that returned negative results, indicating potential for rehabilitation.
While Mickan sought a fine or good behaviour bond without a conviction, Hinton recommended a conviction and a “significant” fine. Nitschke noted the media scrutiny surrounding Speirs, suggesting that the coverage had been damaging to his reputation. However, Hinton countered that it was Speirs himself, through his choices, who had tarnished his own standing.
Speirs’ sentencing is scheduled for April 24, where the court will deliberate on the appropriate penalties for his actions. The case highlights the intersection between personal struggles and public responsibility, particularly in the realm of political leadership.