R v Franco

In the case of R v Franco, the appellant was charged with possession of a prohibited import, specifically a quantity of cannabis resin exceeding a commercial amount, contrary to the Customs Act 1901. The central issues before the court involved whether the statutory defence under section 233B(1A) of the Act, which exempts individuals who did not know of the importation from liability, was applicable based on the presented evidence, and whether the defence counsel's decision not to argue this defence was deliberate. Additionally, the court had to determine if the judge's directions to the jury regarding possession were adequate.

The court analysed whether the defence counsel's strategic decision not to argue the statutory defence was a deliberate choice or if it stemmed from an oversight. The court also considered whether the directions provided to the jury about the possession of the prohibited import were sufficient to allow them to consider all aspects of the defence. The court examined the evidence to determine if it supported the statutory defence and whether the jury was properly guided on this matter. The court also scrutinised the defence of duress, examining the judge's direction to the jury to carefully scrutinise the accused's evidence about threats and whether this direction unfairly cast the accused as suspect witnesses. Furthermore, the court deliberated on whether the judge's refusal to allow the naming of the "true targets" of the police operation had a significant impact on the effectiveness of the duress defence.

The court found that the statutory defence was not adequately argued by defence counsel, and the judge's directions to the jury regarding possession were deemed adequate. Regarding the duress defence, the court determined that the judge's direction to the jury did not impugn the accused as witnesses but required them to carefully consider the evidence of duress. The court also concluded that the judge's refusal to allow the naming of the "true targets" did not emasculate the defence of duress. In sentencing, the court considered the relevance of prior convictions and the failure of the duress defence, ultimately determining that the culpability of one co-accused was greater than that of the others, leading to a variation in sentencing.

The court ordered a variation in the sentencing of the appellant, taking into account the relative culpability of the co-accused and other relevant factors.