Davis v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Erin Davis (née Kearsley) against the Crown. The applicant sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by providing an inaccurate and insufficient summing up to the jury, thereby failing to ensure a fair trial.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the concept of "control" in relation to drug possession were legally flawed, and whether the judge adequately explained the definition of control from the Criminal Code in the context of the applicant's defence. Specifically, the applicant contended that the judge incorrectly equated the applicant's role as the driver of a vehicle containing drugs with legal control, without properly considering the defence's submission that the drugs were in the actual possession of her husband, who had already pleaded guilty.

The applicant's argument, as presented to the High Court, was that the trial judge failed to adequately distinguish between manual possession and legal control, and that the jury was misdirected by being told that the applicant's status as the driver implied control of the cannabis. The defence had submitted that, by analogy to a taxi driver, the applicant, who had not taken physical delivery of the drugs and was undertaking a journey for personal reasons, could not be considered in control of the drugs. The High Court was asked to consider whether this analogy, and the applicant's explanation of her actions, presented a rational hypothesis of innocence that the jury should have been properly directed to consider, particularly in light of established case law on possession and knowledge.