R v Upson

The appellant, Upson, was convicted of trafficking in cannabis sativa and appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on several issues, including the admissibility of certain evidence, alleged misdirections by the trial judge, the conduct of defence counsel, and the sentence imposed. The court was asked to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and whether this led to a miscarriage of justice. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge gave adequate directions to the jury regarding circumstantial evidence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the evidence in question, including the forensic analysis of a computer tower and the presence of jiffy pellets and irrigation equipment on the appellant’s land, was properly admitted as it had probative value and its prejudicial effect was not disproportionate. The court noted that defence counsel made a rational decision not to object to the evidence and even relied on it during the trial. The court further held that the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding circumstantial evidence were sufficient. The court also rejected the appellant’s argument that defence counsel’s failure to call him to give evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that the decision not to call evidence was a legitimate strategic choice that could have provided a forensic advantage. Finally, the court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applications for leave to adduce new evidence and to amend the application for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.