Karam v The King

The case of Karam v The King involves an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the applicant, Karam, on four charges related to trafficking and conspiracies to import and possess commercial quantities of border-controlled drugs and/or precursors. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, following two separate trials and a reference determination. The applicant's former lawyer had acted as a police informer, providing advice without a practising certificate, raising issues of potential misconduct and its impact on the fairness of the trials.

The legal issues before the court were whether the informer's conduct constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, whether the applicant was deprived of a fair trial, and whether the failure to disclose the lawyer's status as an informer amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also considered the principles governing leave to appeal a conviction and the criteria for granting leave to appeal against a reference determination.

The court found that while the lawyer's conduct was irregular and breached duties of loyalty and confidentiality, it did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held that the irregularities were not fundamental or serious departures from trial processes and did not affect the result of either trial. The court also found that the breaches did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice as the applicant was not deprived of the right to independent legal counsel. The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.

The court granted leave to appeal the reference determination but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant did not seek an alternative positive finding that the lawyer's conduct had a material effect on the course of the trials or deprived the applicant of independent legal counsel. The appeal against the reference determination would not assist the applicant in the substantive appeal grounds. The court concluded that the applicant had not established that the irregularities may have affected the result of either trial, and the conviction was inevitable.