Su v The King

In the case of Su v The King, the applicant was found guilty of two counts of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor. The precursor was concealed in packages of paintings consigned from Derby in the United Kingdom to parcel lockers in Sydney, opened under names other than the applicant's. The court heard that there were four additional consignments sent from Derby using a different name and identity than the applicant's. The applicant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the admission of tendency evidence and the way it was relied upon at trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admission of tendency evidence and the manner in which it was relied upon at trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice and whether the verdict was unreasonable. The court considered whether the tendency evidence was relevant and whether its admission and the way it was relied upon at trial impacted the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the verdict.

The court found that the tendency evidence was relevant and its admission did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the proper use of the tendency evidence, and the jury had been properly alerted to the dangers of convicting based on the evidence. The court also held that the verdict was not unreasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders. The applicant's appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence stood.