A trial judge is not obliged to use the term 'presumption of innocence' or to contrast the criminal and civil standards of proof when directing a jury, provided a clear direction on the onus and standard of proof is given. Departure from the Victorian Criminal Charge Book does not of itself constitute a misdirection. In a multi-count presentment where the Crown relies on cross-admissibility, a separate consideration warning and anti-substitution warning may suffice without a classical propensity warning. A non-parole period of 80% of the head sentence may be justified where prospects of rehabilitation are highly questionable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.