Fuller v The Queen

The appeal concerned convictions for possession and supply of dangerous drugs. The appellant, Fuller, appealed against his conviction on multiple grounds, including issues relating to prosecution disclosure, the splitting of the prosecution's case, and the admission of expert evidence. The appeal was heard by Riley CJ, Barr and Hiley JJ.

The legal issues before the court included whether the prosecution had impermissibly split its case by cross-examining the appellant regarding an alleged drug transaction for which no prior disclosure had been made to the defence. Additionally, the court considered whether the admission of evidence from a forensic accountant, Mr. Wall, constituted expert opinion evidence and, if so, whether it was wrongly admitted. The court also had to determine if prejudicial questions posed by the prosecutor during cross-examination, which were subsequently withdrawn, warranted the discharge of the jury.

The court found that while the prosecution should have informed the defence immediately about the material relating to the alleged drug transaction, rather than introducing it through cross-examination, the trial judge's clear directions to the jury immediately following the objection mitigated any prejudice. The court held that juries are presumed to understand and comply with judicial directions, and their capacity to do so should not be underestimated. Regarding Mr. Wall's evidence, the court determined that his calculations, based on existing data and involving basic mathematics, did not require special expertise and therefore did not constitute expert opinion evidence. Consequently, its admission was not an error. The court concluded that, in light of the trial judge's directions, no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.