Judicial interventions during a criminal jury trial, even if frequent and sometimes extending beyond what is normal, will not give rise to a miscarriage of justice where they are directed at ensuring the jury understands the evidence and do not reveal partiality. A trial judge's hostile and demeaning treatment of defence counsel in the absence of the jury, while inappropriate, does not of itself give rise to apprehended bias or a miscarriage of justice where the conduct does not hamper counsel in the defence and is not conveyed to the jury. Evidence of an accused's drug use is admissible where it is central to the context of the offending and the prosecution case, and is not merely of marginal relevance to identity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.