Lin v The Queen

Lin was charged with importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor, specifically pseudoephedrine. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The central issue in the appeal was whether evidence of prior uncharged importation of pseudoephedrine should have been admitted as it was argued to be relevant to the applicant’s state of mind and to rebut the defence that he had accepted the package for a work colleague. This contention drew on the principles articulated in Ivanoff v The Queen [2015] VSCA 116.

The court considered whether the evidence of the prior importation was relevant to the applicant’s state of mind and if it could be used to rebut the defence that he had accepted the package for a work colleague. The court examined whether the evidence was necessary to counter the defence that the applicant had acted solely for his colleague’s benefit, which would have negated the mens rea required for the importation offence. The court also assessed the relevance of the evidence under the principles of admissibility and whether it met the threshold for relevance under the common law.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the evidence of prior uncharged importation was indeed relevant to the applicant’s state of mind and was admissible to rebut the defence that he accepted the package for a work colleague. The court found that the evidence was necessary to counter the defence and to establish the applicant’s intent, aligning with the precedent set in Ivanoff v The Queen [2015] VSCA 116. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction of the applicant. The evidence of the prior uncharged importation was deemed relevant and admissible, and thus the conviction was maintained.