Williams v Olsen

The appellant, Williams, was convicted of possessing heroin with intent to supply it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Williams was in a vehicle with another person, Olsen, when both were found with heroin. Olsen admitted to possession and stated the heroin was not Williams's. The appeal was centred around the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of Williams.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove Williams's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court had to determine if the involvement of Williams in a possible earlier sale of heroin and his presence in the vehicle with Olsen and the heroin could, together, establish his possession of the heroin with intent to supply. The court also considered whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory given the evidence presented.

The court found that the evidence did not definitively prove Williams's possession of the heroin with intent to supply it. The circumstantial evidence, while suggestive, did not exclude the reasonable possibility that Olsen alone was in possession of the heroin. The court emphasised that for a conviction to be upheld, the guilt of the accused must be the only inference reasonably open on the evidence. In this case, the evidence allowed for other reasonable inferences, thus making the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.