Stires v State [2015] FJCA 173; AAU0095.2014 (23 December 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
[On Appeal from the High Court]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: AAU0095 OF 2014
(High Court Case No: HAC 13/2014)

BETWEEN:

GREGORY WILCOX STIRES
Appellant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Coram : Goundar JA

Counsel : Mr. M. Yunus for the Appellant
Mr. L. J. Burney for the State

Date of Hearing : 8 December 2015
Date of Ruling : 23 December 2015

RULING

[1] The appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of illicit drugs contrary to section 5(a) of the Illicit Drugs Control Act 2004 in the High Court at Lautoka. On 30 July 2014, he was sentenced to 9½ years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years. This is a timely application for leave to appeal against conviction only on the following grounds:

1. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact when he did not adequately direct the assessor (sic) that possession without knowledge shall not constitute to be an offence,

2. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact when he failed to direct the assessor (sic) regarding the manner in which they should draw inference when reaching their verdict.

[2] The brief facts are that the appellant arrived in Fiji on 2 February 2014 in an inbound flight from Hong Kong. When custom officers searched his suitcase at Nadi International Airport, they found 3.8kg of Methamphetamines concealed and wrapped around in the rim of the bag. The appellant was arrested and charged with possession of an illicit drug.

[3] To prove possession, the prosecution is required to prove not only that the accused had physical custody or control of the substance but he did so with the knowledge or belief that the substance was an illicit drug (Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) 2 AC 256).

[4] The directions on possession and inferences that the assessors could draw from the evidence are contained in paragraphs [20]-[24], [29] and [51] of the Summing Up. I have carefully read the directions. In my judgment the directions are impeccable. There is no arguable error in the directions. The test for leave has not been satisfied.

Result
Leave refused.

Hon. Justice Daniel Goundar
Justice of Appeal

Solicitors:
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the Appellant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State