Gjonaj v The Queen

The appellant, Mr Gjonaj, appealed his conviction for supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis. The appeal was heard by Blokland and Hiley JJ and Graham AJ in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The central dispute concerned the admissibility and probative value of evidence relating to Mr Gjonaj's prior cannabis offences.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether coincidence evidence of Mr Gjonaj's prior cannabis offences was of no significant probative value and had been erroneously admitted under s 98(1)(b) of the *Evidence (National Uniform Evidence) Act (NT)*. Secondly, the court considered whether evidence of these prior convictions was wrongly admitted under s 101(2) of the *Evidence (National Uniform Evidence) Act (NT)* because its probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. A further issue arose regarding leave to add an additional ground of appeal concerning the trial judge's directions on coincidence evidence.

The court reasoned that the evidence of Mr Gjonaj's prior involvement in hydroponically growing cannabis was sufficiently similar to the current offence to be considered "coincidence evidence" and was not improperly used to suggest a tendency to commit crime. The court found that this evidence had significant probative value as it could rebut an innocent explanation for the presence of cannabis in the vehicle and directly established Mr Gjonaj's knowledge of the cannabis. The court held that the probative value of this evidence far exceeded any likely prejudice, particularly given the trial judge's clear directions to the jury on its limited use. The court also refused leave to add a new ground of appeal concerning the trial judge's directions, finding no possibility of real injustice as no objection had been taken at trial and the directions given were clear. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.