Trial judges directing juries on handwriting comparison evidence are not required to follow any mandated form of direction but must ensure the summing up as a whole adequately conveys the limitations and risks of such evidence. Directions on possession in drug cases need not employ the word 'acquiescence' or provide a catalogue of what is insufficient, provided the summing up as a whole makes clear that mere knowledge of the presence of drugs is insufficient and that power to exercise control must be established. The question whether the statutory definition of 'possession' in s 4 of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) is wider than the common law definition remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.