Malesevic v The Queen

Malesevic (the applicant) appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia against his conviction for possessing a commercial quantity of cannabis with intent to supply. The Crown alleged that the applicant and his wife attempted to dispose of the cannabis upon the arrival of police, and that an interview given by a Mr Moed, which provided an alternative explanation for the cannabis's presence, was implausible.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, thereby providing grounds for appeal. This required the Court to consider whether it was open to the jury to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to supply the cannabis, and whether the jury was entitled to reject Mr Moed's explanation.

The Court found that the jury was entitled to infer from the applicant's actions upon police arrival – specifically, attempting to dispose of the bulk of the cannabis in the backyard and clearing remnants from the kitchen – that he possessed the cannabis with the intent to supply. Furthermore, the Court considered Mr Moed's interview to be objectively implausible, particularly his explanation for bringing and then disposing of the cannabis at the applicant's home in the early hours of the morning when police arrived. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no basis to find the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Permission to appeal was refused.