La Bianca v The State of Western Australia

In the case of La Bianca v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Mr La Bianca, appealed against his conviction for possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply it to another. The respondent, the State of Western Australia, sought to admit evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing as propensity evidence, which was ultimately admitted. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Mr La Bianca argued that the evidence of his past drug dealing did not have significant probative value, and that the absence of direction identifying the permissible use of propensity evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, he contended that the evidence led at trial was not capable of establishing that the drugs in the vehicle he drove were so clearly visible that he must have seen them. The State argued that the evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing was relevant and had significant probative value, and that the evidence led at trial was capable of establishing the fact that the drugs in the vehicle were so clearly visible that the appellant must have seen them.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing was not capable of establishing that the drugs in the vehicle were so clearly visible that he must have seen them. The court also found that the absence of direction identifying the permissible use of propensity evidence did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. However, the court found that the evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing did not have significant probative value. The court found that the evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing was not relevant to the issue of whether he possessed the drugs with intent to sell or supply them to another. The court found that the evidence of the appellant's past drug dealing was only relevant to the issue of whether he had a propensity to deal in drugs, which was not an issue in the case.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction was set aside. A judgment of acquittal was entered. The orders made by the court were that leave to appeal on grounds 2 and 2A was refused, leave to appeal on grounds 3, 4 and 5 was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment of conviction was set aside, and a judgment of acquittal was entered. The appeal was dismissed in the second case. The cases were categorised as A, indicating that they involved significant legal or factual issues of general importance.