Evidence of an accused's demeanour described in vague and nebulous terms (such as 'nervous', 'distracted', 'unnerved' or 'erratic') lacks probative value as an implied admission of guilt and is inadmissible as incriminating conduct under s 18 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). Evidence that an accused consulted a lawyer after learning of a co-offender's arrest is not capable of constituting incriminating conduct, given the fundamental right to obtain legal advice. An expert police officer with specialised knowledge of drug importation methodologies may give opinion evidence as to whether the circumstances of a particular case are more consistent with one methodology (such as 'dry runs') than another (such as 'piggybacking').
The full text is available to signed-in members.