Where the Crown particularises the intent element of an offence by reference to a specific act alleged in another count, proof of that act beyond reasonable doubt becomes essential to conviction on the intent counts, even though commission of the act is not a formal element of the offence. A trial judge who subjects defence counsel's submissions to adverse commentary while summarising the Crown case without equivalent scrutiny creates a miscarriage of justice that general directions about the jury's role as fact-finders cannot cure. Where conflicting expert evidence is central to the case, the trial judge must take the jury through the evidence with some precision, explaining how the opinions differ and how they bear on the issues.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.