The case confirms that where the Crown's own case is that a co-accused's recorded interview is untruthful, and the jury convicts that co-accused (thereby rejecting the exculpatory version), the prospect that the jury illegitimately relied on the inadmissible interview to convict another co-accused is remote. The DNA evidence in a circumstantial case may be of little value where transference cannot be excluded, but the cumulative weight of other circumstantial evidence (telephone communications, CCTV, destruction of evidence) may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.