Evidence of a criminal enterprise is admissible against an accused where there is reasonable circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the enterprise, and the admissibility of such evidence is a matter for the trial judge, not the jury. In a complex corporate fraud trial, deficiencies in the trial judge's directions — including failure to identify the enterprise, failure to single out evidence against each accused, and failure to direct on evidence not admissible against a particular accused — may not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice where the prosecution case is overwhelming. For the offence of knowingly making improper use of position under s 232(6) of the Corporations Law, the test of impropriety is objective, but the state of mind of the alleged offender (knowledge, purpose and intention) is an important factor where the impropriety is said to consist in an abuse of power.
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.