Where an accused admits telling lies to police, the trial judge's lies direction need not embark upon a detailed analysis of each lie provided the four Edwards requirements are correctly stated, the lies are identified, and the competing arguments are outlined. A direction that knowledge for the purpose of s 233B(1)(d) includes a positive belief in a significant or real chance that narcotics are involved is correct. A specific circumstantial evidence direction is not required where the summing-up as a whole adequately instructs the jury that the Crown must prove knowledge is the only rational inference. On sentencing for large-scale heroin importation, the role of a ship's captain who transported the heroin is pivotal but falls short of the worst case where there is no evidence of involvement in purchase, delivery to the vessel, or distribution.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.