Where trial counsel has discharged obligations under ss 11 and 12 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 with care, identifying matters in issue and accepting the formulation of integrated directions, it will be very difficult to argue on appeal that the trial judge should have given unrequested directions under s 16. The 'substantial and compelling reasons' threshold under s 16 is more stringent than the former 'necessary to avoid a substantial miscarriage of justice' test under the 2013 Act. Evidence of prior drug manufacturing at the same premises remains highly probative to rebut a defence of innocent association, even after a substantial lapse of time, applying Harriman v The Queen.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.