The case confirms that where a complainant's evidence is the subject of late and progressive disclosure, a jury may rationally convict on counts supported by objective evidence or admissions while acquitting on counts disclosed later and lacking such corroboration, without the verdicts being inconsistent. The Crown's forensic decision to confine its case to proof of a specific drug (rather than any prohibited drug) may create an unnecessary evidentiary burden, as the statutory elements of supply (s 25(1) DMTA) and aggravated sexual intercourse (s 66C(4) Crimes Act) do not require proof of the precise drug.
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.