R v Le

The appellant, Le, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland for cultivating a prohibited plant, namely cannabis, in quantities not less than a commercial quantity, dealing with property that was the proceeds of crime, and possessing property valued at less than $100,000 that was the proceeds of crime. Le was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. Le appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and Le now appeals to the High Court against his conviction and sentence. The sole ground of appeal was that the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury that it should consider whether Le had a genuine belief that he was not cultivating a prohibited plant.

The legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge erred in failing to direct the jury to consider whether Le had a genuine belief that he was not cultivating a prohibited plant. The appellant submitted that the primary judge should have directed the jury to consider whether he had a genuine belief that he was not cultivating a prohibited plant, and that the jury should have been directed to consider whether Le's belief was genuinely held, reasonable, and based on evidence. The respondent submitted that the primary judge did not err in failing to direct the jury in the manner submitted by the appellant.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in failing to direct the jury in the manner submitted by the appellant. The court noted that the appellant did not submit that he genuinely believed that he was cultivating a plant other than a prohibited plant, but rather that he genuinely believed that he was not cultivating a prohibited plant at all. The court held that the primary judge was not required to direct the jury to consider whether the appellant had a genuine belief that he was not cultivating a prohibited plant, as the appellant's evidence did not suggest that he believed he was cultivating any plant at all. The court further held that the primary judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure that the jury considered all of the evidence and arguments before reaching a verdict. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence be dismissed, and that an intensive correction order and a community correction order be made in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the primary judge. The orders are set out in detail at [69].