Evidence that a precursor chemical found at an accused's premises could be used to manufacture a drug of dependence, and evidence of the quantity of that drug that could be produced, is admissible as circumstantial evidence bearing on the accused's knowledge of the quantity of drugs in their possession for sale. The risk of unfair prejudice from jury speculation about manufacture can be adequately addressed by judicial direction, particularly where there is no evidence of actual manufacture.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.