Lee v The Queen

The applicants, Lee and another, were convicted of various drug-related offences and appealed against their convictions. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the provision of compelled documents and transcripts to the Director of Public Prosecutions in breach of a non-publication direction denied the applicants their right to a fair trial, whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of joint possession, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The applicants also argued that the trial judge failed to warn the jury about matters relevant to the reliability of a key witness.

The court considered whether the provision of compelled documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions in breach of a non-publication direction denied the applicants their right to a fair trial. The court found that the provision of the material was unlawful, but it did not create a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the New South Wales Crime Commission was obliged to furnish admissible evidence to the Director and whether this limited the Commission's power to furnish other material. The court found that the obligation to furnish admissible evidence did not limit the Commission's power to furnish other material. The court then considered whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of joint possession. The court found that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury.

The court considered whether the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court noted that the evidence in support of the case was circumstantial and that the reliability and adequacy of the key witness's evidence was in question. However, the court found that the jury had the advantage of assessing the witness and that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court also considered whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of "consciousness of guilt" reasoning. The court found that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury on this issue.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the provision of compelled documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions in breach of a non-publication direction did not deny the applicants their right to a fair trial, that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury on the issue of joint possession, and that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.