A trial judge's use of 'reasonable probability' instead of 'reasonable possibility' when directing a jury on whether someone other than the accused had possession of drugs may create a real risk of misleading the jury on the standard of proof, particularly where a reverse onus direction on another element uses similar language. There is no universal obligation to give a [name withheld] direction that even if the jury rejects defence evidence it must still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; general directions on onus and standard will usually suffice. However, the trial judge must relate the defence evidence to the elements of the offence unless the matter is entirely straightforward.
The full text is available to signed-in members.