Ra v The Queen

The parties in this matter were the applicant, Ra, and the respondent, The Queen. The case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, following a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply drugs, and the application to the High Court focused on alleged errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the definition of conspiracy to supply. Specifically, the applicant argued that an agreement to agree to supply drugs could not constitute a conspiracy. Further, the applicant contended that the trial judge had incorrectly instructed the jury that a conspiracy to supply could be established by reference to the statutory deeming provision of section 29 of the relevant legislation, in addition to the definition of supply in section 3.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the trial judge's direction that a conspiracy to supply could be made out if the jury was satisfied of any of the elements of section 3 of the legislation, including merely agreeing to supply, was erroneous. The applicant argued that this direction, which suggested a conspiracy could exist between two parties where one agreed to supply the other, was too broad. Furthermore, the applicant contended that the trial judge's inclusion of section 29 of the legislation as a basis for finding a conspiracy to supply constituted a clear error.