A trial judge's direction on accessorial liability that is more favourable to the accused than the law requires does not constitute appellable error, even if technically wrong. A direction that fingerprint evidence 'calls for some explanation' does not reverse the onus of proof where comprehensive directions on the burden and standard of proof are given. Where an offender is engaged in cannabis cultivation at two locations as part of a single enterprise, partly cumulative rather than fully cumulative sentences may better accord with the one transaction and totality principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.