R v Snounou (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 584

R v Snounou (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 584

Although the facts behind Counts 1 and 2 may establish a tendency to on-supply a substance for illicit purposes, that tendency did not support, establish or prove any necessary element of the remaining GBL importation offence or the anticipated issue concerning the statutory defence under s 313.2 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The tendency was at most relevant to a collateral and uncharged intention and lacked significant probative value; alternatively, any slight probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Pre Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Tendency Evidence / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling
Outcome
The proposed tendency evidence was rejected.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'importation of Border Controlled Drug' 'mistake or Reasonable Belief Defence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'importation of Border Controlled Drug' 'mistake or Reasonable Belief Defence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Pre Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Tendency Evidence / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the factual circumstances underlying the accused's guilty pleas to NSW iodine possession offences was admissible as tendency evidence in relation to the alleged importation of gamma-butyrolactone from China." 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence had significant probative value in relation to any element of the charged GBL importation offence or anticipated issue at trial.' 'Whether any probative value of the proposed tendency evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the facts behind Counts 1 and 2 may establish a tendency to on-supply a substance for illicit purposes, that tendency did not support, establish or prove any necessary element of the remaining GBL importation offence or the anticipated issue concerning the statutory defence under s 313.2 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The tendency was at most relevant to a collateral and uncharged intention and lacked significant probative value; alternatively, any slight probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect.

Court Disposition

The proposed tendency evidence was rejected.

Orders

  • ['Evidence rejected due to lack of probative value.' 'In the alternative, any slight probative value would not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence.']