Julien v WA

[2021] WASCA 79

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
5. › Circumstantial evidence case
6. › Assessment of competing inferences
7. › Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
4. › Concept of possession
5. › Knowledge as element of possession
6. › Control or dominion over prohibited drug
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 3(1), 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Circumstantial evidence
4. › DNA evidence
5. › Absence of DNA evidence connecting accused to drugs
6. › Whether absence of DNA evidence required jury to entertain reasonable doubt

Quick Take

The absence of DNA evidence connecting an accused to drug packaging is not evidence that the accused did not touch the packaging, and does not of itself require a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to guilt. A jury is entitled to reject as implausible a defence hypothesis that a third party hid drugs of significant value in a location known to the accused, where the relationship between the accused and the third party was not one of trust and the third party knew the accused would access the location.