Finch v R

The appeal before the court was brought by the appellant, Finch, against the respondent, the Crown. The dispute centred on the conviction of Finch under section 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) for the deemed supply of prohibited drugs. The court was required to determine whether the evidence concerning drugs not directly related to the charges should have been admitted. Additionally, the court had to assess if the evidence of a police officer regarding the method of consuming LSD in cardboard form should have been allowed. Another issue was whether there was a misdirection concerning the inclusion of the cardboard and liquid containing LSD in the overall weight of the LSD under section 4 of the Act. The court also needed to consider if the primary judge erred by not directing the jury to determine if Finch was in possession of drugs found in different locations or packages separately. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the primary judge erred in not leaving to the jury alternative charges. The appeal also raised questions about whether Finch was unable to receive a fair trial without the Crown witness and informant being called to give evidence, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Finally, the court had to evaluate if the defence counsel at trial was incompetent and whether the forensic decisions of counsel were appropriate.

The court examined the evidence and the primary judge's directions to the jury. It held that the evidence concerning drugs not directly related to the charges was inadmissible. However, the court found that the evidence of the police officer as to the method of consuming LSD in cardboard form was admissible. The court held that there was no misdirection concerning the inclusion of the cardboard and liquid containing LSD in the overall weight of the LSD. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in not directing the jury to determine if Finch was in possession of drugs found in different locations or packages separately. The court held that the primary judge did err in not leaving to the jury alternative charges. The court found that Finch was not unable to receive a fair trial without the Crown witness and informant being called to give evidence, and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Finally, the court held that the defence counsel at trial was not incompetent, and that the forensic decisions of counsel were appropriate.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial. The court found that the primary judge's failure to leave to the jury alternative charges was a significant error that warranted a retrial. The court held that the other issues raised in the appeal did not affect the outcome of the case. The court did not address the issues concerning the admissibility of evidence, as it found that the error in not leaving to the jury alternative charges was sufficient to warrant a retrial. The court ordered a retrial to be conducted before a different judge, and directed that the jury be left to determine whether Finch was in possession of drugs found in different locations or packages separately, and to consider alternative charges. The court held that the other issues raised in the appeal did not warrant a new trial, as they did not affect the outcome of the case.