(d) On each occasion in February 2022 when the applicant attended the LPOs, she either drove herself or was driven by her daughter.

(e) The applicant and her daughter were intercepted by police on 23 February 2022 inside their vehicle.

(f) Police executed a search warrant at the home of the applicant and her daughter on 23 February 2022. The execution of the warrant was video recorded. The applicant's daughter was present for the search warrant. The items seized during the search warrant included the following:

(i) $80,450 cash on top of a coffee table;

(ii) $37,000 cash in a black pencil case on a couch;

(iii) silver mylar bags found both on top of a daybed as well as a table;

(iv) eight bags containing multiple 10 ml vials of steroids under a table;

(v) testosterone labels in a box near the vials of steroids under a table; and

(vi) seven Express Post packets and three Express Post satchels on top of the couch.

(2) In the front entry room, on the floor next to the television, a food heat sealing machine.

(3) In the applicant's daughter's bedroom, $10,000 cash under the mattress.

(i) an auto-weighing and filling machine;

(ii) resealable clear plastic bags, silver mylar bags and heat-seal bags;

(iii) padded envelopes;

(iv) five sets of scales;

(v) Express Post envelopes and satchels;

(vi) spoons; and

(vii) large zip-lock bags containing cocaine, opium, ketamine and amphetamine.

(g) Police also executed a search warrant on the car in which the applicant and her daughter were apprehended. The items seized included the following:

(1) $15,000 cash in an envelope in the glove box on the front passenger side, where the applicant was seated;

(2) $150 in an envelope in the applicant's handbag on the front passenger seat;

(3) $4,225.90 cash in a purse in the applicant's handbag;

(4) $324,950 in a Lululemon bag on the backseat of the vehicle; and

(5) $4,000 in US currency in a Lululemon bag on the backseat of the vehicle.

(h) When interviewed by police the applicant's daughter made admissions to packaging the drugs into Express Post envelopes and giving them to her mother to post. She further stated that:

(1) her mother did not know what was going into the packages;

(2) her mother did not know what she was delivering to the post offices; and

(3) she kept 'it' (her drug activity) 'well hidden' from her mother.

(i) On 23 February 2022 the applicant, with the assistance of an interpreter, gave the following answers when interviewed by police.

Q: O.K. Tell us, in as much detail as you can, what you and your daughter did when you left home today in her car.

A: O.K. I - I didn't have anything. We just left home, you know, to do - to go to work as usual.

Q: O.K. You said you went to work. Where did you go?

A: I - I don't have anything to say. We just go out, you know, and do some - as usual. We just went out to work.

Q: What kind of work [applicant] doing?

A: I don't understand. I - I - I don't know what to say.

...

Q: O.K. What - what work do you do with your daughter?

A: I - I don't understand anything, O.K., you say, and my English is not very good. I don't understand.

Q: That's why we're translating.

A: Oh, no, I don't want to - I don't want to say anything about this.

...

Q: Did all the envelopes in her house, and the packaging and the drugs in her house - did she think at any stage that it might be illegal?

A: I don't know. I don't have anything to say but I thought that it was O.K. - it was really O.K. to - to send them out.

Q: Did you know what was in them?

A: I - I don't - I don't know. I don't know.

...

Q: Even though you're on footage dropping the parcels off containing drugs, at - at least 200 plus parcels, maybe more.

A: I just thought it was legal things. You know, I - I - this is a kind of job I - I do. I work. I don't know anything in there.

Q: How long you were doing this kind of job?

A: I don't remember.

Q: How it started?

A: That's how I work. I don't know, you know, what - what it is, so I cannot tell you. I cannot tell you. It's just that kind of job.

...

Q: How you being paid for the job you're doing?

A: I don't know what to say. I don't know what to - how to answer this question.

(j) Yuming Mei, the licensee of the Oakleigh South LPO, had previously given sworn evidence that:

(1) the applicant attended the Oakleigh South LPO and lodged Express Post envelopes and satchels. They were handed over to him sealed and in a state ready to be posted. Mr Mei never saw the applicant write on the packages;

(2) the applicant purchased Express Post envelopes and packages for cash;

(3) he did not speak to the applicant much as her English was limited and she had an accent. He found it difficult to understand her. His staff also had difficulty understanding the applicant; and

(4) he did not think there was anything out of the ordinary about the packages until he was contacted by police.

1. Mr Tung said he was the licensee of the Darling LPO in Malvern East. He had worked there for six years. Mr Tung said that the applicant was one of his customers. He said that in January and February 2022 the applicant would come to the post office to bring packages for lodgement and to sometimes buy Express Post envelopes. The lodged packages were Express Post envelopes. The applicant attended alone. Sometimes he believed that her daughter waited outside in the car. Mr Tung said that the envelopes lodged by the applicant were all addressed to individuals. None of the envelopes bore sender information.
2. Mr Tung said that the police attended his post office in February 2022. He provided them with CCTV footage from 21 February 2022. That footage was played to the jury. Mr Tung identified both himself and the applicant in the footage.
3. In cross-examination Mr Tung said that the applicant had told him her name and other things about herself, including that she had a daughter and two cats and that she loved gardens. He said that he twice ran into the applicant and her daughter at Chadstone Shopping Centre and on both occasions she acknowledged him.
4. Mr Tung said that he was aware that the applicant's English was not good and that he had trouble understanding her. He agreed the envelopes she lodged were always ready to be posted - they were sealed and addressed. Mr Tung never observed the applicant write on them. He agreed that there was no requirement for the sender details to be completed.

1. Sergeant ('Sgt') Joey Kurtschenko gave evidence about the execution of the search warrants on 23 February 2022. He said that the $80,000 on the coffee table in the loungeroom was 'clearly visible'. Videos of the execution of the search warrants, which were not continuous recordings, were played to the jury. In the video of the search warrant at the house, the applicant's daughter explained that the $10,000 under her bed was personal cash that she earned when she started a business, which she had kept for good luck as a 'cultural thing'. A series of 52 photographs was also tendered through Sgt Kurtschenko.
2. In cross-examination Sgt Kurtschenko said that the car in which the applicant and her daughter were intercepted on 23 February 2022 was a Mercedes leased by the applicant's daughter. Following that interception the applicant was taken to the police station and did not enter the house. Sgt Kurtschenko said that he would have thought that, prior to police searching the premises, a video of the then-state of the premises would have been made. He said it was 'strange' that such a video had not been made on this occasion and that it 'bothered' him. Sgt Kurtschenko said that he was inside the house when the car was searched and was therefore unable to say whether the glovebox in the car was open or closed when police first started to search it nor whether any items were removed by police from the glovebox before the bundle of cash was discovered. He was then asked questions about a further series of photographs of the car. The effect of that questioning was that Sgt Kurtschenko agreed with a series of propositions: there was a police photograph showing the glovebox open; it was only after the Lululemon bag was taken from the car that police discovered that the pencil cases and bag inside it each contained cash; and two Express Post envelopes found on the backseat with drugs inside contained multiple inner bags that had to be cut open before any drugs were visible. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that there were no drugs or drug-related items in the applicant's handbag on the front passenger seat.
3. As to the layout of the house, Sgt Kurtschenko said that the garage was separate from the house. There was a back door entrance. To enter it from the house it was necessary to go outside and travel a small distance. The garage was also accessible from the driveway. Sgt Kurtschenko said that the applicant's daughter provided police with keys to both the house and garage.
4. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that there were no powder drugs openly displayed at the house. The powder drugs found were in sealed silver foil mylar bags. The drugs found in liquid form, identified by the applicant's daughter as steroids, were packed in boxes stored under the dining room table. Sgt Kurtschenko also agreed that the larger quantities of drugs were found in the garage and not the house. They were in a cardboard box on the bottom shelf of a trolley. The top shelf held the auto weighing and filling machine, which the applicant's daughter said she had used. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that on the video of the execution of the search warrant the applicant's daughter could be seen identifying the drugs found in the cardboard box in the garage by pointing to a marking - like 's' for speed or 'k' for ketamine - or from the appearance of the substances - she said that something looked like opium because it was brownish in colour. He also agreed that the applicant's daughter told police that she used the automatic weighing and filling machine to weigh the drugs and put them in silver bags. She said she used a spoon that was present to fill bags with MDMA. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that, in the garage, police found several sets of kitchen scales, an assortment of packaging materials, Australia Post envelopes/satchels and a heat sealing machine. The heat sealing machine found in the house was inside a box with a closed lid.
5. As to the items found in the loungeroom, Sgt Kurtschenko said that the pencil case on the couch was in clear sight. He agreed that it was only when it was opened that police found the cash. Sgt Kurtschenko was asked to look at a photograph of the coffee table taken from above. He agreed that the objects depicted on the coffee table included some envelopes and a gold chocolate box. He also agreed that the video showed the chocolate box being lifted from the cash. However, he rejected the suggestion that it was only after police had lifted the envelopes and chocolate box that the extent of the cash was discovered, saying 'no, you could see the cash quite clearly'.
6. Sgt Kurtschenko said that in her interactions with police during the warrant action, the applicant's daughter was able to identify the drugs, give an accurate estimate of their weight and also accurately estimate the value of each bundle of cash. She also provided passwords to every electronic device in the home.
7. Sgt Kurtschenko was then asked about the applicant's daughter's lawful business, 'Pouvoir Botanicals'. He agreed that the applicant's daughter had claimed to purchase tea leaves, seaweed and fungi in bulk from Laos to onsell. He further agreed that during the search, police found a Business Activity Statement for Pouvoir Botanicals Pty Ltd, registered to the address of the Hughesdale house, and some white fungi and tea. A Business Activity Statement for My Easy PC was also found. An ASIC extract showing that Pouvoir Botanicals Pty Ltd was registered on 13 July 2020 was tendered.
8. Sgt Kurtschenko said that he was the informant in the prosecution of the applicant's daughter. He said that she was 'a very clever woman' and had Australian university qualifications in information technology. Her command of English was both good and substantially better than that of the applicant. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that the applicant did not have any computer skills. He said that the offending by the applicant's daughter involved use of the dark web and an encrypted email service. She employed 'dead drops' for both drugs and cash. She was sometimes paid in cryptocurrency. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that there was no evidence that the applicant used the dark web, an encrypted email or cryptocurrency.
9. In re-examination Sgt Kurtschenko said that Pouvoir Botanicals was described to him as a company set up in order to make and distribute non-alcoholic gin. It had nothing to do with tea and fungi. The applicant's daughter had told him that the tea and fungi were being distributed, but not as part of Pouvoir Botanicals. Sgt Kurtschenko said that police had found testers for non-alcoholic gin as well as three bags of tea, some white fungi and a couple of bags of sesame seeds.
10. Sgt Kurtschenko's answers with respect to the gin business came as a surprise to both the prosecutor and the applicant's counsel. The latter was permitted to further cross-examine Sgt Kurtschenko, first on a voir dire and then in front of the jury. Sgt Kurtschenko said that the applicant's daughter told him during the warrant execution that she had set up Pouvoir Botanicals to make non-alcoholic gin products. That conversation occurred off camera. Sgt Kurschenko said that police found a small cardboard box with six little glass bottles, all hand labelled and each containing clear liquid. He said that police suspected the contents of the bottles were drugs, but the applicant's daughter said they were testers of non-alcoholic gin for her company. She did not say for what period that business had been in operation but said it was not up and running. The applicant's daughter did say that she had invested a lot of time and money in the labelling and the testers were one step away from full production of the product. Sgt Kurtschenko agreed that this was a different business from the tea and fungi business. He agreed that when the applicant's daughter was interviewed by police at the end of the warrant action and asked about the heat food sealer that had been found, she said that it was for her 'legitimate business' and was used to seal tea in mylar bags to keep it fresh. She explained that that business sold seaweed and tea online. Cash was accepted from family and friends. The applicant's daughter had said that the tea business was called Provenance and had been operating for two and a bit years.

1. Detective Senior Constable ('DSC') Edmond Shkembi gave evidence that he was involved in the interception of the Mercedes Benz and the arrest of the applicant and her daughter on 23 February 2022. He said that the police interview with the applicant that day (the extracts of which formed part of the agreed facts) was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.
2. In cross-examination DSC Shkembi was asked about the proximity of the relevant post offices to the applicant's Hughesdale home. He did not agree that Oakleigh South, Murrumbeena and Darling were the three closest. Those at Oakleigh Shopping Centre and Chadstone Shopping Centre were closer.
3. DSC Shkembi agreed that the seized packages that had been delivered to post offices by the applicant had a number of layers. There was a small plastic bag containing drugs inside a heat sealed silver foil mylar bag inside another layer - variously a paper envelope or cardboard box such as a tea bag box - inside a padded postal bag inside an Express Post bag or envelope. He also agreed that the analysis of the applicant's mobile phone did not reveal that it had been used in connection with drugs and that there were no irregularities in her single bank account.
4. DSC Shkembi said that during her interview the applicant was assisted by three different telephone interpreters. He agreed that there were some problems with the interpretation process and that there were a number of times in which the applicant said that she did not understand what was being asked of her.
5. DSC Shkembi said that he was not involved in the execution of the search warrants. However he agreed that there was a receipt for the exchange of AUD to USD next to the Lululemon bag in the car in which USD were found, which appeared to be dated February 2021.

1. The sole issue in relation to the trafficking charge was whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to traffick drugs of dependence.
2. The judge directed the jury in an orthodox manner[6] that they could find that the applicant possessed the requisite intention if it had been established to the criminal standard that she either:

(a) knew or was aware the packages contained drugs of dependence; or

(b) was aware there was a significant or real chance the packages contained drugs of dependence and the only conclusion that was reasonably open in the circumstances was that she must have intended to traffick packages containing drugs of dependence; or

(c) was aware that there was a risk that she was trafficking in drugs of dependence but deliberately failed to make further enquiries to avoid learning the truth and the only conclusion that was reasonably open in the circumstances was that she must have intended to traffick packages containing drugs of dependence.[7]

1. The applicant characterises her proposed ground of appeal as containing two related complaints. First, that the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. That is, the prosecution could not prove to the requisite standard that she held any one of the three requisite intentions. Second, that there were inferences consistent with innocence that were reasonably open and could not be excluded.
2. The circumstantial nature of the case is emphasised. This was not a trial in which the credibility of any witness was in issue. Accordingly the applicant submits that this Court is in as good a position as the jury was to consider the evidence as a whole.
3. As to the first complaint, the applicant makes the following series of interrelated propositions.

(a) The dwelling in which the applicant and her daughter lived was small. It was a two bedroom house with communal areas. The garage was separate. The applicant's daughter had the key to the garage. There was no evidence that the applicant had a key or used the garage in any manner.

(b) The applicant's daughter said she had used the garage to split the bulk drugs into smaller distributable quantities. The bulk drugs were found along with an automatic weighing machine, multiple kitchen scales, spoons and a heat-sealing machine. All of those items were hidden.

(c) There were no powder drugs visible in the house. All powder drugs found in the house were sealed in silver mylar bags. The steroids found in the house were well hidden. They were in a box under a table. They were the only drugs visible in the house.

(d) The prosecution conceded that the applicant played no role in the packing of the drugs into mylar bags or Express Post envelopes. The applicant's daughter said that her mother did not know what was in the envelopes. The evidence of Mr Tung established that when posting the envelopes the applicant behaved in a manner inconsistent with someone who was knowingly trafficking drugs.

(e) The packages lodged at the post offices by the applicant were sealed and labelled. The drugs were concealed inside multiple layers. There was no requirement for the sender details to be completed. There was no evidence that the applicant had sufficient English to have realised that the sender details were blank.

(f) The cash in the house was either not visible or only partially visible. The impression given by the recording of the execution of the search warrant in the house that there were cash, drugs, envelopes and packaging material everywhere was not accurate. Contrary to normal practice the police failed to video record the state of the house prior to commencing the search. This was of particular relevance to the $80,000 cash on the coffee table. The applicant submitted that the best evidence of the state of the coffee table was the photograph taken from above which showed the cash partially obscured by envelopes and a chocolate box. There was no evidence as to how long the cash had been there, who placed it there or whether any items had been on top of it. The $37,000 was hidden in a pencil case.

(g) The presence of packing materials, computer and a printer in the house were equally consistent with use in the applicant's daughter's legitimate business as with use in a drug trafficking business.

(h) The cash in the car was hidden. There was no evidence as to whether the glove box was open or closed at the time the car was intercepted. As with the house, police failed to video record the state of the car prior to commencing the search. The $15,000 in the glovebox was concealed in an envelope. The $325,000 was inside other bags inside the Lululemon bag on the back seat. The $4,225 cash found in the applicant's purse was consistent with her using cash for purchases. The CCTV footage from the Darling LPO established that she paid cash for the purchased envelopes.

(i) The drugs found on the back seat of the car were inside envelopes and were not visible.

(j) The applicant's daughter said she kept her drug business well hidden from her mother.

(k) There was no forensic evidence linking the applicant to the drugs, drug-related paraphernalia or cash.

(l) The applicant did not have the technical capability to understand the dark web or an encrypted email application.

(m) The applicant's answers in the police interview must be viewed through the difficulty arising from her limited English and the use of three different telephone interpreters. It was not open to the jury to conclude that the applicant was being evasive or untruthful.

(n) The applicant was of good character.

1. The inferences consistent with innocence were said to arise from the applicant's daughter's legitimate businesses. The following matters are put.

(a) The applicant's daughter ran three legitimate businesses. Provenance sold products like tea, seaweed and fungi. The business had been operating for about two years. The products were sold in silver mylar bags and heat sealed. Both tea and fungi were found by police in the house. Pouvoir Botanicals was dedicated to non-alcoholic gin. Gin testers were found by police in the house. Although that business was not fully running, Sgt Kurtschenko gave evidence that the applicant's daughter said she had invested considerable time and money in it. The third business was My Easy PC Pty Ltd. Tax documents or other paperwork relating to all three businesses were present in the house.

(b) All of the items relevant to these businesses were in the common areas of the house. They were not hidden. They would have been clearly visible to the applicant.

(c) The prosecution accepted that the $10,000 cash found underneath the mattress in the bedroom of the applicant's daughter was cash earned when she first started a business that she had kept for sentimental value and luck. It was accepted that it was not linked to drug trafficking or was otherwise the proceeds of crime. That amount of cash demonstrated that the applicant's daughter had an ability to derive a significant sum from a legitimate business.

1. The respondent contends that it was open to the jury, on the whole of the evidence, to conclude that the applicant reasonably suspected the packages contained drugs or was wilfully blind to whether the packages contained drugs.
2. The prosecution case at trial was not that the applicant was a major player in her daughter's drug business. Rather, the case was put that in circumstances where the applicant lived in a small house with her daughter and the communal areas of the house contained large amounts of cash and other items associated with drug trafficking, the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was either aware that there was a significant or real chance that the large number of packages she was posting contained drugs of dependence or that she was wilfully blind to their contents, such that the only conclusion reasonably open was that she must have intended to traffick drugs.
3. The following matters are emphasised.

(a) The $4,225 found in the applicant's handbag was a significant amount of money to be carrying around. It must also be viewed in the context of the rest of the cash found in the glovebox of the car, in the Lululemon bag in the car and on the coffee table and in the pencil case in the lounge room.

(b) It was open to the jury to be satisfied that the $80,000 cash on the coffee table was visible. That was the evidence of Sgt Kurtschenko. The jury had the benefit of the video and photographs as well.

(c) The applicant had easy access to all the cash, which was a total of $461,000, not including the $10,000 under the mattress of the applicant's daughter. That sum, in cash, is indicative of a drug trafficking business. Other easily accessible items were similarly indicative. These included the steroid bottles, Express Post satchels, a heat-sealing machine, mylar bags and a computer and printer.

(d) The applicant's behaviour at the post offices was equally consistent with someone who did not want to draw attention to themselves as it was with someone ignorant of the contents of the packages. That Mr Tung knew the applicant's name says little.

(e) The posited alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence are implausible. Pouvoir Botanicals was not operational. In any event the packages sent by the applicant were unlikely to contain bottles of gin. Provenance was an online and cash in hand business concerning tea and fungi. Very little tea and fungi was found. There was no evidence as to the operation of My Easy PC Pty Ltd or any products that it would sell which would be posted in Express Post envelopes or packages. The $10,000 under the mattress indicated no more than at some time in the past the applicant's daughter had generated that amount.

(f) It was open to the jury to reject the applicant's daughter's statements that the applicant knew nothing as inconsistent with the rest of the evidence and an attempt to protect her mother from liability.

(g) It was open to the jury to consider the applicant's answers in the police interview as evasive and not consistent with her holding a positive belief that she was posting items for her daughter's legitimate businesses.

1. The applicant's proposed ground is founded in s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which requires this Court to allow an appeal against conviction if satisfied that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. In order to succeed the applicant must demonstrate that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt on the charge. The question for this Court is whether it was open to the jury, acting rationally, to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the applicant was guilty.[8] To determine that question the Court is required to undertake an independent assessment of the whole of the evidence.[9]
2. The appellate court is not to simply give effect to its own view in place of that of the jury, so as to substitute trial by a court of appeal for trial by jury.[10] Full allowance is given to the advantages enjoyed by the jury in having seen and heard the witnesses give evidence in the unfolding criminal trial.[11]
3. If the appellate court considers that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it must set aside the verdict given by the jury based on that evidence. In that sense, the court's doubt will, in effect, be a doubt which a reasonable jury ought to have had.[12]
4. In a circumstantial case that means that the appellate court:

must 'weigh all the circumstances in deciding whether it was open to the jury to draw the ultimate inference that guilt has been proved to the criminal standard'. A circumstantial case must not be considered 'piecemeal'. If, on the whole of the evidence, 'the prosecution has failed to exclude an inference consistent with innocence that was reasonably open', then the jury is not able to draw that ultimate inference. Accordingly, in a circumstantial case, it is impermissible to consider any piece of evidence in isolation from the whole.[13]

1. That is, in this trial the applicant's guilt could only be established beyond reasonable doubt if, on the whole of the evidence, it was the only rational inference open on the evidence. In R v Baden-Clay the High Court said:

The principles concerning cases that turn upon circumstantial evidence are well settled. In Barca v The Queen,[14] Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ said:

• When the case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are 'such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused': Peacock v The King.[15] To enable a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it is necessary not only that his guilt should be a rational inference but that it should be 'the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable them to draw': Plomp v The Quee__n;[16] see also Thomas v The Queen.[17]

For an inference to be reasonable, it 'must rest upon something more than mere conjecture. The bare possibility of innocence should not prevent a jury from finding the prisoner guilty, if the inference of guilt is the only inference open to reasonable men upon a consideration of all the facts in evidence'. Further, 'in considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence'. The evidence is not to be looked at in a piecemeal fashion, at trial or on appeal.[18]

1. We are satisfied that it was open to the jury, acting rationally, to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the applicant was guilty. Based on our review of the whole of the evidence, we are satisfied that the applicant's guilt was the only reasonable inference open.
2. The applicant knew that her daughter was engaged in a business that required, between 17 January 2022 and 23 February 2022, a period of 32 days, the lodgement of 396 packages at a post office. That is, the applicant knew that her daughter was engaged in a significant commercial enterprise. That multiple layers of packaging were used is irrelevant to that conclusion, as is the fact that the applicant's daughter sealed and addressed the packages.
3. We are also satisfied that the applicant knew that her daughter's significant commercial enterprise produced significant amounts of cash.
4. During the trial evidence concerning the state of the $80,450 found on the coffee table came from three sources: the video of the warrant execution, the photograph of the coffee table taken from above and the evidence of Sgt Kurtschenko. The photograph shows some envelopes and a gold chocolate box on top of the cash. While the applicant submits to this Court that those objects meant that the cash was concealed from view and was visible only after those items were moved by police, the evidence of Sgt Kurtschenko was to the contrary. He unambiguously said that the cash was 'clearly visible'. And, although there was no video of the items in situ in the house prior to the search commencing, it was never suggested to Sgt Kurtschenko in cross-examination that police moved the items on the coffee table prior to the video being taken. Further, the video shows a different perspective of the coffee table from the photograph. It demonstrates that a person seated on the sofa would have been able to see the cash that was stacked under the envelopes and chocolate box.
5. In any event, whether the $80,450 was wholly or only partially visible at the time the warrant was executed, it was nonetheless in piles on a coffee table in the lounge room. The surface of a coffee table is, as a matter of common human experience, in a state of flux. Things are put on it and removed from it as the occupants of a house use communal space. That the applicant's daughter did not trouble to hide $80,450 in cash but rather left it in open view - or at the very least easily discoverable should her mother reach for a chocolate - allows the inference that her observation or discovery of such a large amount of cash would not occasion any unwanted curiosity or surprise.
6. The same observation applies to the other amounts of cash. While not visible in the manner of that on the coffee table, they were nonetheless easily accessible to the applicant in the communal areas, both house and car, that she shared with her daughter. If the applicant had sat on the pencil case on the sofa, she might have opened it and discovered $37,000. At any stage, while she as a passenger in (or driver) of the Mercedes, the applicant could have opened the glovebox to discover an envelope with $15,000 or opened the Lululemon bag on the backseat to find $324,950 in various smaller bags. If the applicant's daughter had wanted to hide $461,000 from her mother, she could have put it in her own room in the same manner as she hid $10,000 under her bed.
7. The $4,225 cash in the applicant's purse must be assessed in this light. It is a significant amount of cash for a 77-year-old woman to be carrying around, even if she was a person who used cash to make purchases.
8. These matters combine to fix the applicant with knowledge that her daughter was engaged in a significant commercial enterprise that produced a significant amount of un-banked cash. In the circumstances of the case the jury was then required to assess the applicant's state of knowledge as to the substances or items she was posting.
9. True it is that the powder drugs were kept in the garage, rather than the house, and there is a strong inference from the equipment in the garage that the applicant's daughter packaged the bulk drugs into smaller saleable amounts in that location. And, although they were in the lounge room, the steroids were in a box under a table. The applicant contends that a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is, therefore, that she believed the packages she posted to be associated with one of her daughter's legitimate businesses. We do not accept that this inference was reasonably open and had not been excluded by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
10. While it is possible that the applicant knew of those businesses, much was made of her limited English. If she had discovered any of the documents relating to them, it cannot be concluded that she would have understood what those documents related to. The jury was also entitled to conclude that although the documents and other items said to be related to these businesses were not hidden, they also were not particularly visible.
11. There was no evidence before the jury as to the operation of My Easy PC Pty Ltd or what the applicant might have observed of that entity's operations in the house. A jury would be entitled to reject the idea that the packages contained materials relevant to it. Pouvoir Botanicals was not operational. Only a small number of gin testers were found in the house. The shape and size of the packages posted by the applicant indicates that they did not contain bottles. Further, the visible mylar bags would not be used to seal gin bottles. Provenance was not an active, high volume enterprise. There were no bulk quantities of the products it sells stored in the house (or garage). To the contrary, only a small amount of tea and fungi was found in the house. The jury was entitled to reject the notion that the applicant thought she was lodging 396 packages over a 32 day period containing tea, fungi or seaweed or that she needed to attend different post offices to do so. Moreover, Provenance was an online business, with cash only accepted by the applicant's daughter from family and friends. The jury was entitled to think that any suggestion that the applicant's daughter had amassed in excess of $450,000 cash from selling vast quantities of tea and fungi to family members and friends - and that the applicant could have thought this to be the case - was absurd.
12. The applicant must have wondered what the visible silver foil mylar bags were for, if not for tea and fungi. She knew they were for a product (or products) that was in high demand, required her to frequently attend different post offices with multiple packages and produced large sums of cash. These matters in combination lead to the conclusion that the applicant was, at the very least, aware that the significant commercial enterprise traded in illicit substances and that she was wilfully blind to the risk that the packages contained drugs of dependence (that is, the third requisite intention identified as path (c) in the directions to the jury.[19])
13. Added to these matters, it was open to the jury to conclude that the answers the applicant gave to police when interviewed were evasive. She did not tell police that she was posting items for her daughter's (legitimate) business. Rather, she did not want to say anything 'about this'. The jury was entitled to take these answers into account when considering the plausibility of the alternative hypothesis that the applicant believed the packages she posted were associated with one of her daughter's (legitimate) businesses. The jury was entitled, in all the circumstances, to consider that the applicant's daughter's statement that she kept her drug activity well hidden from her mother was at odds with the cash in the house and car and an attempt to shield her elderly mother from criminal liability. The jury was also entitled to consider that the applicant's behaviour in the post offices was entirely neutral. Finally, the applicant's good character does not lessen the force of the whole of the circumstantial case.
14. The verdict of guilty on the charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence was the only reasonable inference open when considering all of the circumstances established by the evidence. The jury was entitled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to traffick packages containing drugs of dependence.

1. The application for leave to appeal will be refused.

[1] Contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. The charge alleged that the applicant trafficked multiple drugs of dependence between 17 January 2022 and 23 February 2022.

[2] Contrary to s 194 of the Crimes Act 1958. The applicant's daughter pleaded guilty to rolled-up charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (large commercial quantity), trafficking in a drug of dependence (simpliciter), knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and possession of identification information of others intending to commit an indictable offence.

[3] Evidence Act 2008, s 191.

[5] The applicant called her son to give evidence as to the provenance of 14 luxury handbags found in her bedroom. That evidence was relevant only to the charge of which the applicant was acquitted and is not further referred to.

[6] Judicial College of Victoria, Criminal Charge Book, [7.6.1.2].

[7] The judge provided this direction to the jury in writing by way of a question trail.

[8] M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487, 493 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ); [1994] HCA 63 ('M'); Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, 146-7 [43]-[45] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ); [2020] HCA 12 ('Pell'); Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 274 CLR 651, 657-8 [8] (Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ); [2022] HCA 25 ('Dansie').

[9] Pell (2020) 268 CLR 123, 128; [2020] HCA 12 (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ); Dansie [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 274 CLR 651, 657-8 [8] (Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ); [2022] HCA 25.

[10] M [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487, 494-5 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ); [1994] HCA 63.

[11] M [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487, 493-4 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ); [1994] HCA 63; Pell (2020) 268 CLR 123, 145 [38] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ); [2020] HCA 12.

[12] M [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487, 494 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ); [1994] HCA 63.

[13] Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29; (2023) 278 CLR 323, 396 [251] (Jagot J); [2023] HCA 29 (citations omitted).

[14] [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82, 104; [1975] HCA 42.

[15] [1911] HCA 66; (1911) 13 CLR 619, 634 (Griffith CJ); [1911] HCA 66.

[16] [1963] HCA 44; (1963) 110 CLR 234, 252 (Menzies J, Windeyer J agreeing at 252); [1963] HCA 44.

[17] [1960] HCA 2; (1960) 102 CLR 584, 605-6 (Windeyer J); [1960] HCA 2.

[18] [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308, 323-4 [46]-[47] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ); [2016] HCA 35 (emphasis in original) (some citations omitted).