The Court of Appeal held that documents relating to drug manufacture found at an accused's home were inadmissible as propensity evidence in a trafficking trial where manufacture was not alleged, as they were relevant only to show criminal propensity. The Court confirmed that trial judges must not undermine defence hypotheses through comments that go beyond identifying speculation, but found no error where the judge correctly identified that there was no evidence to support the defence theory. The Court viewed video recordings of the applicant's and a key witness's trial evidence when applying the proviso, finding this appropriate in the particular circumstances where the prosecution case was compelling and the applicant claimed his evidence was persuasive.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.