The case confirms that extensive surveillance and telephone evidence showing an accused's prolonged presence near the scene of a drug transaction, frequent telephone contact with co-offenders, and telephone calls to the location where a courier was waiting can constitute sufficient independent evidence of participation in a common enterprise to justify admission of co-offenders' acts and declarations under the Ahern/Tripodi preconcert exception. An accused's use of public phone booths rather than a mobile phone to call a relevant location is a circumstance from which the jury may draw an adverse inference. The absence of evidence from the accused is a significant obstacle to an 'unsafe and unsatisfactory' ground of appeal where the circumstantial case is strong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.