Where the offence of theft is charged by reference to the broad statutory definition of 'dealing' with property, and the prosecution does not specify the particular manner of dealing alleged, the court must order the prosecution to provide particulars. The broader and more non-specific the offence, the greater the need for adequate particulars. The s 34P(2)(a) test requires the prosecution to demonstrate that probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect — the onus is not reversed. Where the prosecution eschews reliance on particular propensity under s 34P(2)(b), the prosecutor must not invite the jury to engage in propensity reasoning in closing address, and the trial judge must correct any such invitation. Section 134(4) requires a specific direction that subsequent dealings with property cannot amount to theft if the defendant originally received the property honestly believing they acquired good title, even if the defendant later became aware the property was stolen.
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.