Evidence of an accused's participation in prior suspicious activities is admissible as direct evidence of the accused's actual knowledge and state of mind (not as tendency evidence subject to s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995) where the Crown relies on it to prove what the accused in fact knew or suspected, rather than to prove a tendency to have a particular state of mind. In sentencing for drug importation, the focus should be on the offender's actual conduct rather than concise role labels.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.