De Marchi v The King

The appeal concerned Mr De Marchi, who appealed against his conviction. The dispute centred on the admission of certain evidence and the directions given to the jury by the trial judge. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether evidence of Mr De Marchi's prior familiarity with cannabis cultivation was improperly admitted, and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding this evidence and subsequent evasive conduct were adequate. Specifically, the court considered whether the evidence of cannabis fragments, implements, and a grow room found in Mr De Marchi's home was led for an impermissible propensity purpose, or whether it was relevant to establishing his knowledge and experience in harvesting cannabis, thereby making it more probable that he was invited to a warehouse for that purpose rather than an innocent one. The court also examined the trial judge's directions on the significance of Mr De Marchi's evasive conduct.

The Full Court reasoned that the evidence of Mr De Marchi's familiarity with cannabis and its cultivation was properly admitted. It was not used to suggest a general propensity to cultivate cannabis, but rather to demonstrate his knowledge and experience, making it more likely that he was invited to the warehouse to assist in harvesting the plants. The court likened this to evidence of a plumber's profession being used to infer they were asked to fix a tap, rather than suggesting a general inclination to fix plumbing. Even if considered a propensity use, the court found its probative value on the purpose of Mr De Marchi's presence outweighed its prejudicial effect. Regarding the evasive conduct, while the judge's directions were found to have some circularity, they were ultimately considered more favourable to Mr De Marchi than they ought to have been, and the jury was directed against any impermissible use of that evidence.

The Court dismissed the appeal in respect of Grounds 1A and 1B, and allowed permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in respect of Ground 2. The overall appeal was dismissed.