Lia v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Lia v The State of Western Australia, the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply. The appellant appealed against this conviction on the basis that it was unreasonable or could not be supported on the evidence. A secondary contention was that the guilty verdict on this count was factually inconsistent with the appellant's acquittal on another count of attempted possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. This involved assessing the evidence presented at the trial and considering whether the jury's decision was open to them on the evidence. The court also had to examine whether the guilty verdict on the possession count was factually inconsistent with the acquittal on the attempted possession count. This involved an analysis of the factual circumstances of both counts and whether they were capable of coexisting without contradiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply was open to the jury based on the evidence presented. The court noted that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's decision. The court also determined that the guilty verdict on the possession count was not factually inconsistent with the acquittal on the attempted possession count. The court held that the two counts involved different factual circumstances and could coexist without contradiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply was dismissed. The conviction was upheld, and the appellant remained convicted as per the decision of the Magistrates Court. The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the lower court.