In a judge-alone criminal trial turning on conflicting expert evidence, the trial judge must explain in reasons why one body of expert evidence is preferred over another on central issues, particularly where the rejected evidence goes directly to the ultimate finding of guilt. It is not sufficient that the trial judge was attentive to the issues during the hearing; the obligation under s 133(2) requires the reasoning to appear in the reasons themselves. The Court also signalled concern about the practice of announcing a finding of guilt before delivering reasons containing self-directions on warnings, though this issue was not determined.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.