Where a direction that the jury cannot convict a secondary party unless they find the principal guilty is given, the direction does not necessarily create a risk of wrongful conviction of the principal to reach the secondary party, provided the direction is properly understood in context. In extended joint criminal enterprise cases involving a firearm, a direction requiring contemplation of the use of a 'weapon' may be sufficient where the context makes it plain the weapon was a gun, particularly where supplemented by a direction requiring proof of knowledge that the principal had a gun. An omission to expressly direct the jury against using re-examination evidence about a prior consistent statement for a testimonial purpose is not an error of law but a failure to apply a rule of practice, and will only ground an appeal if it produced a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.