In a circumstantial case against an accessory before the fact, where there is no direct evidence of the content of communications alleged to constitute the acts of assistance and encouragement, the Crown must exclude reasonable alternative inferences as to what was communicated, including that the accessory may have intended a lesser level of harm than that which was inflicted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.