The case confirms that where an accused's alternative hypothesis rests on a claim of innocent purpose (here, counterfeiting rather than drug importation), the jury is entitled to reject that hypothesis where the accused is shown to have told demonstrable lies in the witness box about basal aspects of his account, and the circumstantial Crown case based on intercepted communications, surveillance, and conduct is powerful. The bare possibility of innocence is insufficient where the inference of guilt is the only inference reasonably open on the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.