Shortland v The King

The appellant, Shortland, appealed against his conviction by a jury. The appeal concerned verdicts of guilty on counts 2, 3, and 5, and a verdict of not guilty on count 1. The central dispute revolved around whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable, inconsistent with the acquittal on count 1, or affected by latent duplicity.

The court was required to determine whether the guilty verdicts on counts 3 and 5 were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and whether they were inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 1. Additionally, the court considered whether the conviction on count 2 was ambiguous or uncertain due to latent duplicity, and whether the jury had been adequately directed on the elements of the importation offence in count 2, specifically concerning the requirement of dealing with the cocaine in connection with its importation and the need for unanimity on the conduct constituting that dealing.

Regarding counts 3 and 5, the court found no necessary or logical inconsistency between the acquittal on count 1 and the guilty verdicts on these counts. The inconsistencies identified in the evidence related to matters of detail rather than essential features of the witness's account, which was supported by objective circumstantial evidence. The jury was able to be satisfied that the money paid into the appellant's account came from the sale of cocaine from the robot package, and there was no evidence suggesting proceeds from other supplies. Consequently, the appeal against the convictions on counts 3 and 5 was dismissed. However, the appeal against the conviction on count 2 was allowed. The court determined that the summing up had failed to make clear to the jury that they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had dealt with the cocaine in connection with its importation, and that they had not been directed on the specific conduct required or the unanimity requirement in relation to that conduct. Therefore, a new trial on count 2 was ordered.