R v Strawhorn

Strawhorn, an applicant and a serving member of Victoria Police attached to the Drug Squad, was convicted of trafficking in a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine. The case before the court involved various legal issues pertaining to the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented against the applicant, as well as the appropriate exercise of sentencing discretion. The applicant argued that his failure to mention certain pseudoephedrine transactions to his superiors, coupled with his statement that 'it never happened', did not amount to a consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, he contested the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the movement and communication between relevant individuals, asserting that it was intractably neutral. The applicant also contended that the trial judge erred in declining to give a Faure warning to the jury regarding the reliability of evidence provided by former police members involved in criminal conduct. Additionally, the applicant challenged the admissibility of evidence relating to his possession of unexplained cash, and the interpretation of the term 'pure' in relation to pseudoephedrine hydrochloride according to the British Pharmacopeia standards.

The court examined the evidence presented against the applicant and determined that it was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the applicant's failure to disclose the pseudoephedrine transactions to his superiors, along with his statement that 'it never happened', was indicative of a consciousness of guilt. The court found that the evidence relating to the movement and communication between relevant individuals provided support for the conduct alleged, and was not intractably neutral. In relation to the Faure warning, the court found that there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to give such a warning, as the evidence provided by the former police members was deemed reliable. Furthermore, the court held that evidence of the applicant's possession of unexplained cash was admissible, and that the term 'pure' in relation to pseudoephedrine hydrochloride should be interpreted according to the British Pharmacopeia standards. Consequently, the court dismissed the application.

In relation to the sentencing, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The applicant argued that parity and fresh evidence should be taken into account, as well as a subsequent superannuation order made. However, the court held that the sentence was appropriate, and dismissed the application. The court also noted that the case of R v McLeod (2007) 16 VR 682 was relevant to the consideration of the applicant's arguments. Ultimately, the court dismissed both the application for a new trial and the application for a reduced sentence.