When a jury in a criminal trial signals it may be engaging in Jones v Dunkel reasoning based on the accused's failure to call character witnesses, a direction telling the jury the question is irrelevant, reiterating the prosecution's burden of proof, directing the jury to focus on the prosecution's evidence, and directing the jury not to speculate beyond the evidence may be adequate, without the need for a specific Azzopardi-style direction identifying the precise inferences the jury must not draw. However, the adequacy of such a direction is context-dependent, and in cases where the jury is deadlocked and the case turns on credibility, a more specific direction may be required.
The full text is available to signed-in members.