Jones v WA

[2006] WASCA 192

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession
4. › Constructive possession
5. › Drugs found in concealed location accessible by multiple persons
6. › Whether prosecution required to negative possession by all persons with access
7. › Whether reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence negatived
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession
4. › Joint possession
5. › Whether more than one person may be convicted of possession of same drug
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Circumstantial evidence
5. › Whether open to jury to draw inference of possession
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Circumstantial evidence
4. › Lies by accused
5. › Edwards lie
6. › Use of lie as consciousness of guilt

Quick Take

There is no legal rule requiring the prosecution to negative possession by all persons who may have had access to a concealed drug. The cases of Filippetti and Lai were decided on their facts — the convictions were quashed because there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that had not been negatived, not because of any legal obligation to call evidence from all potential possessors. The question remains one of fact: whether there is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence and whether it has been excluded.