The case confirms that inadmissible opinion evidence suggesting an accused was involved in witness tampering does not necessarily give rise to a miscarriage of justice where the trial judge gives clear and firm directions to disregard the evidence and explains why speculation on the topic would proceed on a faulty premise. The critical question on appeal is whether, in light of the directions given, there was a real and perceptible risk of miscarriage of justice, not whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.