A trial judge's failure to expressly direct the jury that an aider must have intended to assist the principal offender (as distinct from merely having knowledge of the principal's intention) will not necessarily give rise to a miscarriage of justice where the directions, read as a whole and in the context of the evidence and submissions, adequately convey that the assistance must be purposeful rather than unwitting. The reception of relevant and admissible evidence elicited by defence counsel's cross-examination does not constitute a material irregularity in a trial merely because the evidence was unfavourable to the accused, even if there was no forensic advantage in asking the questions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.