R v Falzon

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Crown against an order of the Court of Appeal which had allowed the respondent's appeal against his conviction. The respondent was charged with trafficking and cultivating cannabis found at three properties, and the Crown alleged that the trafficking offences involved possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale. Evidence of $120,800 in cash found at the respondent's home was admitted at trial as evidence that the respondent was engaged in the business of cultivating cannabis for sale.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence of the substantial sum of cash found at the respondent's home. The respondent had objected to its admission, arguing it was irrelevant or that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The trial judge had ruled it admissible as part of the Crown's circumstantial case, akin to other "indicia of trafficking," and found its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice. The Court of Appeal had subsequently found that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the admission of this evidence.

The High Court analysed previous intermediate appellate court decisions concerning the admissibility of cash in drug trafficking cases. It noted that in *Lewis* and *McGhee*, courts had held that evidence of cash found in proximity to drugs and drug paraphernalia was admissible as tending to prove the existence of an ongoing drug business and, consequently, the purpose of sale for the drugs found in possession. This reasoning suggested that cash could be considered "working capital" or a "cash float" for expected sales in a profit-making enterprise. The High Court ultimately allowed the Crown's appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal's order and dismissing the respondent's appeal to that court.