Once a trial judge is satisfied that exclusion of evidence would eliminate or substantially weaken the prosecution case under s 295(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), certification must follow as a matter of course; there is no separate discretion to refuse certification on the basis that the ruling is not 'attended by sufficient doubt'. The 'sufficient doubt' consideration from McDonald and Stannard is confined to s 295(3)(b). Coded language in recorded conversations may constitute 'reasonable evidence' of participation in a criminal enterprise for the purposes of the co-conspirators rule where the context supports the inference that the accused understood the coded meaning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.