The case illustrates the application of the unreasonable verdict test where the accused gave evidence at trial and the jury rejected his exculpatory account. Once the jury rejected the accused's explanations, the remaining circumstantial evidence — including presence in a locked shed during dismantling of drug-concealing altars, being covered in dust, destruction of a mobile phone, and admissions against interest — was sufficient to support an inference of the requisite custody or control for attempted possession of a border controlled drug.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.