Where the prosecution case in a drug manufacturing charge depends on evidence connecting the accused to uncharged drug activity at a separate premises, that evidence may constitute an indispensable intermediate fact requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt before it can be used to support guilt (a Shepherd direction). DNA evidence on a moveable object establishing mere presence at a drug laboratory at an unknown time, combined with the accused's presence at a second premises where drug precursors were found but without forensic evidence linking the accused to those items, may be insufficient to prove participation in manufacture beyond reasonable doubt. The rarity of a common precursor found at both premises does not necessarily establish a connection attributable to the accused, as external causes may explain the coincidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.