Hammer v The Queen

The appeal concerned a conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant, Hammer, was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of South Australia of trafficking methylamphetamine. The prosecution's case was that Hammer supplied methylamphetamine to Ms George, who then supplied it to an undercover police officer. Police subsequently searched Hammer's residence, where they found cash, a notebook with tick list entries, digital scales, plastic bags, mobile telephones, and a pouch containing methylamphetamine in the neighbouring property, with DNA evidence linking Hammer to the pouch.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were primarily concerned with alleged misdirections by the trial judge to the jury. Specifically, the appeal raised questions about the proper direction to be given to a jury regarding the use of evidence of past drug sales by the appellant, and whether such evidence could be used to infer a propensity to traffic drugs. The court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the issue of possession of the methylamphetamine found in the neighbouring property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury, when read as a whole, were adequate. The court held that the jury had been properly instructed that evidence of past drug sales could only be used for specific purposes, such as to show a course of conduct or a common purpose, and not simply to infer that the appellant was a person of bad character who was likely to have committed the offence charged. The court also found that the jury had been correctly directed on the issue of possession, considering the circumstantial evidence presented.

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal on one ground but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.