An expert witness giving opinion evidence about the meaning of intercepted conversations in drug cases must limit their evidence to expressing consistency with drug-related terminology rather than asserting that conversations were in fact about drugs, unless the reasoning process is sufficiently exposed and the opinion is demonstrably based on specialised knowledge. Trial judges must direct juries on the need to analyse the basis of expert opinion evidence, not merely remind them of their general function in assessing evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.