McNally v The King; Doble v The King - [2025] VSCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0035

LUKE MCNALLY	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent
S EAPCR 2024 0141

WAYNE DOBLE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 231
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 2480 (Judge Carlin)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Trafficking in drugs of dependence in commercial quantities and large commercial quantities – Applicant convicted of 24 charges related to the manufacture of methylamphetamine and MDMA at two clandestine laboratories – Admission of evidence of admitted prior drug trafficking convictions – Whether jury invited to use as tendency evidence – Whether danger of prejudice outweighed probative value – Admission of evidence of firearm at clandestine laboratory – Whether relevant evidence – Whether danger of prejudice outweighed probative value – Whether trial judge erred in directions on what is necessary to prove an intention to manufacture a commercial quantity or large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence when drug is found in a mixed substance – Leave to appeal refused.

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, ss 4, 70; Evidence Act 2008, s 137.

R v Ahmed (2007) 17 VR 454; Trajkovski v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 587.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Complicity in trafficking in drugs of dependence in commercial quantities – Prosecution alleged applicant agreed with co-accused that co-accused would manufacture commercial quantities of MDMA and methylamphetamine in a clandestine laboratory at premises controlled by applicant – Whether prosecution case impermissibly changed at trial – Whether trial judge impermissibly intervened to broaden prosecution case – Whether applicant denied natural justice because prosecution failed to disclose path of reasoning to conviction to the jury – Whether trial judge erred in directions on scope of necessary agreement between applicant and manufacturer – Whether evidence that applicant hid from police and lied in record of interview admissible as evidence of incriminating conduct – Whether conviction on charge of trafficking commercial quantity of MDMA was inconsistent with acquittal on charge of trafficking commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Leave to appeal refused.

Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 18, 20, 21, 22.

DPP v Scriven [No 4] [2015] VSC 220; DPP v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62; Cookson (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 289; MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; Booth v The King [2024] VSCA 318.

---

Counsel
Applicant (McNally):		Mr PJ Smallwood and Mr JD Cleveland
Applicant (Doble)		Mr DP Sheales
Respondent:		Mr J Shaw and Ms AM Harrold
Solicitors
Applicant (McNally):	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Applicant (Doble)	Theo Magazis & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Prosecution case

Course of the trial

McNally’s application for leave to appeal

McNally ground 1: Evidence of McNally’s prior criminal history

(a) Submissions

(b) Analysis

McNally ground 2:…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McNally v The King; Doble v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSCA 231
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McNally v The King; Doble v The King, the appellants challenged their convictions for various charges related to the manufacture of methylamphetamine and MDMA at clandestine laboratories. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which reviewed the admissibility of certain evidence and the legal instructions given to the jury. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence of prior drug trafficking convictions and a firearm found at a clandestine laboratory was admissible and whether the trial judge provided appropriate directions to the jury regarding the necessary proof of intent to manufacture drugs in commercial quantities.

The court examined the admissibility of the prior convictions under the Evidence Act 2008 and the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. It considered whether the danger of prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The court also assessed whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on the scope of the agreement necessary to prove complicity in trafficking drugs in commercial quantities. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the prosecution's case had impermissibly changed during the trial and whether the trial judge had intervened to broaden the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence of prior drug trafficking convictions and the firearm were relevant and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and did not deny the appellants natural justice. The court also determined that the prosecution's case had not impermissibly changed, and the trial judge did not improperly intervene to broaden it. Finally, the court held that the evidence of the appellants hiding from police and lying in their record of interview was admissible as it was relevant to the charge of complicity. The court concluded that the appellants' convictions were safe and sound.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and refused leave to appeal, maintaining the convictions of the appellants. The court's decision underscored the importance of properly assessing the admissibility of evidence and ensuring that the jury receives accurate legal directions in criminal trials involving drug trafficking offences.

Orders