Doolan v The Queen

Doolan appealed against a conviction for supplying a prohibited drug. The Crown's evidence was that the appellant was in a room with another person, Colin Stevens. A search of the room found cocaine. The appellant's evidence was that he was in the room with a person, Stephen Graham, who had taken the cocaine from the room. The appellant's statement to police on 22 January 2010 that Mr Stevens was also in the room was inconsistent with his statements on 17 and 18 January 2010 that Mr Stevens had nothing to do with the cocaine or the vehicle. The appellant was convicted. The appellant's appeal was against his conviction and sentence. The issues for the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's inconsistent statements and whether the admission of that evidence was unfair to the appellant under s 137 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the evidence of the appellant's inconsistent statements was relevant because it affected the credibility of the appellant's evidence. The evidence was not excluded by s 102 of the Evidence Act because it was relevant to the credibility of the appellant. The court found that the evidence was not excluded by s 137 of the Evidence Act. The probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The appeal was dismissed.