Davies v WA

[2006] WASCA 151

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Hearsay
4. › Out-of-court statements
5. › Whether statements by third parties denying ownership of drugs admissible through accused
6. › Whether led for truth of contents
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Proviso
5. › Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice
6. › Whether effect of inadmissible evidence on jury could be assessed
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
3. › Possession of prohibited drug
4. › Elements of possession
5. › Control or dominion
6. › Knowledge
7. › Whether knowledge that substance likely to be prohibited drug sufficient
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 3(1), 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Circumstantial evidence
4. › Inference direction
5. › Whether direction that competing inferences must be 'equally reasonably open' constituted misdirection
6. › Whether inference direction necessary on the facts

Quick Take

To prove possession of a prohibited drug under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), the prosecution must prove: (1) control, dominion, order or disposition of the drug; (2) knowledge that the substance is, or is likely to be, a prohibited drug (without needing to prove knowledge of the specific type of drug); and (3) on current authority (Davis v The Queen), intention to possess, though proof of knowledge will normally suffice for this element. The correctness of the requirement to prove intention to possess as a separate element was doubted but not decided. Where inadmissible hearsay evidence is admitted that is relevant to an issue on which the accused bears the onus of proof (such as intent to sell or supply), the proviso cannot be applied if the effect of the evidence on the jury cannot be assessed.