LW113: Courts and Disputes Resolution II
Tutorial and Online Discussion Forum 7 (Week 9)
On 31 December 2019, Masi gave Popo a cooler of fish to take from Port-Vila to Suva. Popo
was not aware that Masi had lined the walls of the cooler with two kilograms of
methamphetamines (crystal meth) to be sold in Suva. The cooler was blue and contained
frozen whole yellowfin tuna.
On 1 January 2020 at about 7:30 am, Popo’s plane from Port-Vila arrived at the Nausori
airport. While the passengers were disembarking from the plane, a sniffer dog sniffed the
cooler of fish and began to bark. The sniffer dog guide who was a policeman opened the
cooler without Popo’s consent and found the white powder that lined the walls of the cooler.
The policeman confiscated the powder and sent it to be analysed by the chemistry laboratory
in Suva. The government analyst who normally does these tests and gives expert witness
evidence in Court was not present. Instead, her assistant, a junior lab technician completed
the test and gave evidence that the powder was crystal meth. Crystal meth is an illicit (illegal)
drug according to the Illicit Drugs Control Act. Under s 5 of the Act, it is an offence to be in
possession of an illicit drug.
Popo is a young woman with fair skin and long black hair. She was wearing a white tee shirt
and ripped dark blue jeans. Moli, who was also on the same flight, also has fair skin and long
black hair. She was dressed similarly to Popo and had also checked in a blue cooler.
The police relied on an old camera which recorded vague footage of someone that looked
like Moli wheeling a blue cooler to be checked in at the Air Vanuatu terminal. The camera
was installed in 1995 and located right at the end of the terminal to capture the movements
of people. On the sole basis of that vague CCTV footage, the police arrested and charged
Moli for the offence of being in possession of illicit drugs. When interviewed under caution,
Moli denied the allegation. During the High Court trial, Moli’s lawyer vigorously cross
examined the prosecution witnesses as per his instructions from Moli. The prosecution
completed its case and the Judge found a case to answer. Moli gave her evidence denying
the allegation.
A. As a judge in this case, discuss the need for identification warning requirements
enunciated in the case of R v Turnbull et al [1977] QB 224 ALL ER 549.
B. Identify five of the evidentiary issues that arise in the above scenario. Discuss how
these issues are normally selected and analysed by the prosecution for the purpose
of a criminal trial.
C. The High Court finds Moli “not guilty” at first instance for the offence of unlawful
possession of an illicit drug. This angers the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then
decides to bring a charge of “unlawful importation of an illicit drug” under s 4 of the Act
against Moli. Discuss whether the principle of autrefois convict/acquit applies to the
subsequent charge.