Willingham v The Queen

The appellant was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methylamphetamine and three counts of money laundering, having been acquitted of a further money laundering charge. The appellant appealed these convictions to the Court of Appeal of South Australia, raising several grounds of appeal concerning the trial judge's directions to the jury. These grounds included alleged failures to adequately direct the jury on the permissible and impermissible uses of evidence relating to the drug trafficking offence in relation to the money laundering charges, and the use of evidence of cash amounts in relation to each individual money laundering count. The appellant also appealed the trial judge's directions regarding his flight and attempts to discard evidence, and the use of his own evidence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had provided adequate directions to the jury regarding the use of evidence admitted under s 34P of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence of drug trafficking constituted "discreditable conduct" evidence in relation to the money laundering charges, and if the evidence of cash amounts related to the money laundering charges was similarly discreditable conduct evidence for the purposes of individual counts. The court also considered whether the trial judge’s directions on the appellant’s flight and attempts to discard evidence, and on the use of the appellant’s own evidence, were erroneous and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of drug trafficking was indeed discreditable conduct evidence for the purposes of the money laundering charges, and that the trial judge had failed to give adequate directions as required by s 34R of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA) regarding its permissible and impermissible uses. Similarly, the court held that the evidence of cash amounts, when considered in relation to individual money laundering counts, also constituted discreditable conduct evidence for which proper directions were not given. However, the court determined that the trial judge’s directions concerning the appellant’s flight and attempts to discard evidence, and the use of the appellant’s own evidence, were not erroneous and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in relation to the money laundering convictions (Counts 2 to 4), setting them aside and ordering a retrial for those offences. The appeal against the conviction for drug trafficking (Count 1) was dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds.