In drug trafficking cases where circumstantial evidence (scales, cash, tick lists) is admitted as discreditable conduct evidence under s 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), the trial judge must give an express direction under s 34R(1) identifying both the permissible use (that the evidence may establish the accused was engaged in a business of drug trafficking, from which intention to sell may be inferred) and the impermissible use (rank propensity reasoning — that because the accused engaged in discreditable conduct they are more likely to have committed the charged offence). A general direction that the evidence 'tends to show trafficking' without explaining the reasoning chain through the concept of 'business' is insufficient. A propensity warning given in a different part of the summing up and tied to different evidence will not cure the deficiency.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.