Zhao v DPP (Cth)

Zhao, the appellant, appealed against his conviction for four charges of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely heroin, contending that the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported having regard to the evidence, and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because of the incorrect construction at trial of the phrase ‘deal with’ a controlled substance under the definition of ‘import’ in the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The respondent conceded that the new ground of appeal should succeed. The court granted leave for the appellant to file an amended notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction. The legal issues were whether the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported having regard to the evidence, and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the incorrect construction of the phrase ‘deal with’ a controlled substance under the definition of ‘import’ in the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The court considered the evidence and the relevant legal principles and concluded that the verdicts were unreasonable and that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The court set aside the convictions and entered judgments of acquittal.

The court noted that the appellant was convicted on the basis that he had ‘dealt with’ heroin, which was in turn defined as ‘importing’ it. The court examined the definition of ‘import’ and concluded that it required a more active and direct involvement in the movement of the drugs than what the evidence showed. The court found that the phrase ‘deal with’ should be construed as requiring a more active and direct involvement in the movement of the drugs than what the evidence showed. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable because they were not supported by the evidence, and that there had been a miscarriage of justice because of the incorrect construction of the phrase ‘deal with’ a controlled substance under the definition of ‘import’ in the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The court set aside the convictions and entered judgments of acquittal. The court noted that the respondent conceded that the new ground of appeal should succeed, and granted leave for the appellant to file an amended notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction.