Prosecution bears the burden of proving that substances of offence are methamphetamine, and its precursor pseudoephedrine, according to three counts of charges against Roberts. To prove these substances, the prosecution requires scientific evidence from a recognized laboratory to test and analyse the chemical composition of these substances lest they are other chemicals not stated in the charges. Hence, scientific evidence will confirm whether substances of offence are methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, thus rule out any contention regarding the nature of the substances. Furthermore, scientific evidence will prove that each substance of offence weighed above 0.75kg, which is the threshold quantity for commercial purpose. After determining the identity of the substances and their quantity through scientific means, the prosecution needs to inform the jury that these substances are border-controlled drugs as stipulated in Criminal Code Act 1995, under s314.4.
To prove that Roberts had the drugs, prosecution needs to link Roberts with drugs in containers. In this case, prosecution needs to provide circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that containers that contained drugs were his luggage. To convince and persuade the jury to confirm charges against Roberts, prosecution should present transit records, which link Roberts to containers and demonstrate that containers were in transit to a certain destination. The transit records will not only link Roberts to the containers containing drugs, but also prove that he was transporting them to a specified destination, which is tantamount to importation of border-controlled drugs. Leader-Elliot argues that, prosecution has both persuasive and evidential burdens as criminal responsibilities of proving faulty and physical elements of an offence (5). Thus, through circumstantial evidence, prosecution will provide sufficient evidence that will enable the jury to understand circumstances under which Roberts contravened the law by importing border-controlled drugs in commercial quantity.
Since it is difficult to prove that Roberts intentionally imported the drugs, the prosecution needs reliable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was truly importing or intending to import the drugs in question. This proof is essential because Roberts might have been unaware that the substances he was importing were border-controlled drugs. Therefore, to prove that Roberts was aware that the drugs he was transporting were border-controlled drugs, prosecution requires a reliable witness who witnessed seizure of contraband drugs. In this case, potential witness can be a clearing officer who examined the contraband containers and questioned Roberts if it were his luggage. If Roberts attempted to bribe, or bribed clearing officer, so that his luggage could pass the clearance point, then it implies that he was aware that his luggage contained border-controlled drugs, which he intended to import to a given destination. According to Leader-Elliot, prosecution must prove that a defendant intended to import a given drug and prove recklessness to establish whether a defendant was aware of substantial risk posed by possession of border-controlled drugs (8). Thus, a witness is going to provide substantial evidence that will enable the jury to confirm charges against Roberts.
To corroborate scientific, circumstantial and witness evidences, the prosecution needs to examine financial transactions of Roberts to prove that he was truly trafficking dangerous drugs according to the third count of charges. Hence, forensic account is necessary to scrutinize Roberts’ accounts by examining his financial transactions. The essence of forensic examination is to find out if Roberts’ financial accounts have any transactions with foreign accounts or dummy companies, which have probable link with drug traffickers. In this case, prosecution evidence must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that forensic evidence of money transactions that are in Roberts’ accounts links him to other international drug traffickers. Practically, forensic analysis must demonstrate that Roberts’ accounts have several transactions with foreign accounts without legal business transactions to prove transfer of funds because, Roberts may be having international businesses that he conducts using his accounts. Moreover, forensic study needs to differentiate his legal and illegal business transactions for the jury to make a fair judgement of the case.
The jury is in a position to understand prosecution evidence fully because, the prosecution has used varied and credible evidences to support charges against Roberts. Regarding the first and the second count, prosecution has provided potential evidence to the jury in terms of scientific, circumstantial, witness, and forensic examination of financial transactions. Scientific evidence from laboratory analysis shows that the substance of the offence was chemically methamphetamine and its precursor pseudoephedrine. The chemical composition of substances of offence should be indisputable in order to provide the basis for charging Roberts as per the charges. Moreover, scientific evidence ascertained that the drugs were more than 0.75kg, which is a threshold weight of determining commercial quantity of drugs. Thus, scientific evidence provided chemical identity and quantity of the drugs, hence confirming the charges that the substances were border-controlled drugs and were in commercial quantity.
Furthermore, prosecution provided circumstantial evidence that undoubtedly links Roberts to containers containing the drugs as transit records are credible exhibits. With regard to intention to import and recklessness, the witness confirmed that Roberts was aware of contraband drugs in his luggage as he attempted to bribe his way out of clearance. On the third account, forensic examination of his accounts confirms that Roberts was trafficking dangerous drugs since he had numerous transactions with foreign accounts that are not part of his legal business. Thus, the jury is in a position to discharge its duty properly since, prosecution has provided compelling evidence that warrants confirmation of charges despite the fact that Roberts did not make any admissions.
The society does not need to consider alternative to the jury system in this case because drug trafficking is a serious offence that has immense significance to the nation. According to Department of Justice, drug trafficking is a serious criminal offence that fall in the category of murder, burglary and assault, which are effectively dealt under criminal law because they are offences against community (7). Legally, such offences are ‘indictable’, and therefore, require determination by a jury system. Given criminal nature of drug trafficking, jury system has the capacity to assess charges and give fair verdict that reflects different opinions of judges rather than a verdict issued by a single judge who is prone to biases and external influences.
For the jury to understand prosecution evidence, I suggest that the prosecution should present background information of Roberts in terms of his businesses and business collaborates so that the jury can get a glimpse of Roberts’ influence as international businessperson. Background information is critical because it forms the basis of understanding Roberts as either potentially innocent or guilty of committing criminal offences of drug trafficking. Moreover, prosecution needs to provide scientific evidence from credible laboratory and use credible witnesses who have firsthand information regarding contraband drugs. Credibility of evidence is going to give the jury confidence in analysing incriminating evidence and subsequently issuing a verdict because evidences are comprehensible.
Works Cited
Department of Justice. “Western Australia’s Court System: Student Resource Book.” The Government of Western Australia, 2001: 1-59.
Leader-Elliot, Ian. “Elements of Liability in Commonwealth Criminal Code.” AIJA Magistrate’s Conference, 2001: 1-16.