R v Tran

The appeal before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerned a conviction for trafficking a controlled drug. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, Ms Tran, was in sole possession of heroin found concealed in her bedroom. Police discovered approximately an ounce of heroin in two locations within the bedroom: one bundle inside a printer, alongside electronic scales, and another bundle within a hollowed-out candle with a false bottom, which also contained USB devices. At the time of the police search, the appellant was in the kitchen, while her former partner, Mr Nguyen, who was wheelchair-bound, was seen emerging from the appellant's bedroom. There was no forensic evidence directly linking the appellant to the drugs, and it was not disputed that the appellant had stayed at her sister's house the night before the raid due to Mr Nguyen's presence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the elements of possession, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. Specifically, the appellant argued that the jury should have been directed on the distinction between mere acquiescence and actual possession, particularly in circumstances where another person was present and had access to the bedroom. The court was also asked to consider if the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's exclusive possession of the heroin, or if a reasonable doubt existed.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal on the first ground, finding that the trial judge's directions, while brief, were sufficient for the forensic issues in the case. The court reasoned that the prosecution's case was based on the appellant having personally placed and concealed the heroin for her exclusive use, rather than on a scenario of joint possession or acquiescence. Therefore, a direction on mere acquiescence was deemed unnecessary. Regarding the second ground, the court refused permission to appeal, concluding that the concealment of the heroin in the printer and candle, coupled with personal items belonging to the appellant found in the bedroom, constituted strong circumstantial evidence of her possession. The court found it improbable that Mr Nguyen, given his temporary and disabled status, would have used such elaborate hiding places, and therefore the jury's inference of the appellant's exclusive control was properly drawn.

Consequently, the appeal on the first ground was dismissed, and permission to appeal on the second ground was refused.