BNM v The Queen

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant, BNM, for drug trafficking. The prosecution relied on evidence of a fingerprint matching the appellant's left thumb found on scales discovered alongside tubs of methylamphetamine, and handwriting on a tick list and a brown paper bag matching the appellant's. Crucially, evidence of two prior searches of a unit occupied by the appellant, in November 2015 and January 2016, was admitted over the appellant's objection. In November 2015, police found significant quantities of methylamphetamine, digital scales, and cash, for which the appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking. The January 2016 search also revealed methylamphetamine, scales, drug paraphernalia, and messages relating to drug trafficking. The appeal was heard by Peek and Doyle JJ and David AJ.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the admission of the evidence from the two prior searches constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider if the discreditable conduct evidence from the earlier searches was improperly admitted and if the cumulative effect of all the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

The court reasoned that the cumulative effect of the evidence, including the fingerprint, handwriting, and the prior drug trafficking offences, was sufficient to allow the jury to convict the appellant. The prior offences were admitted as discreditable conduct evidence, and the court found that their prejudicial effect did not outweigh their probative value in establishing the appellant's knowledge and intent in relation to the methylamphetamine found in the later search. The court concluded that the admission of this evidence did not occasion a miscarriage of justice and that the verdict was not unreasonable.

Permission to appeal was granted on grounds relating to the admission of evidence and the reasonableness of the verdict. However, for the reasons outlined, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.