The identity of a dangerous drug may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone without chemical analysis, relying on s 129(1)(b) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). Where an accused gives evidence at trial advancing a specific innocent explanation, the accused cannot on appeal raise an alternative hypothesis inconsistent with that evidence; the accused's testimony narrows the range of hypotheses available, applying Baden-Clay. The jury's rejection of a fabricated explanation can both eliminate competing hypotheses and serve as affirmative evidence of guilt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.