The case illustrates the application of unreasonable verdict principles in a circumstantial drug importation case where the appellants' alternative explanations were found to be implausible. It also demonstrates that evidence relating to one co-accused (travel to Hong Kong, cash at home) may be admissible in the case of another co-accused where knowledge can be inferred from the frequency of their contact, and that a separate trial need not be ordered in such circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.