Wright v State of Western Australia

In *Wright v State of Western Australia*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the interpretation of section 104(1) of the *Criminal Code* (WA). The appellant, Mr. Wright, had been convicted of an offence under this section, which deals with the unlawful possession of prohibited drugs. The central dispute revolved around whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving that Mr. Wright had knowledge of the presence of the drugs in the vehicle he was driving.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the presumption of knowledge, which arises under section 104(1) of the *Criminal Code* (WA) when a person is found in possession of a prohibited drug, could be displaced by evidence that the person was unaware of the drug's presence. Specifically, the court had to determine the nature and extent of the knowledge required for a conviction under this provision and the evidentiary burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.

The High Court held that section 104(1) of the *Criminal Code* (WA) requires proof of actual knowledge on the part of the accused that the substance in their possession is a prohibited drug. The presumption of knowledge created by the section is rebuttable, and an accused person can discharge this burden by adducing evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to their knowledge. The court emphasised that the prosecution bears the ultimate onus of proving all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element of knowledge. In this instance, the court found that the evidence presented by Mr. Wright was capable of raising a reasonable doubt about his knowledge of the drugs' presence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed Mr. Wright's conviction, and ordered that a verdict of acquittal be entered.