Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[4] The appellant, who had deliberately decided to represent himself at the hearing of his appeal, advanced three arguments. It should be recorded that he did so effectively, demonstrating knowledge of all the relevant passages in the transcripts. We deal first of all with his contention that the trial judge had misdirected the jury.
[6] When the trial judge came to give the jury directions on this defence what she said was as follows:-
[8] The second criticism is that the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to what was meant by the reference to the jury finding itself satisfied "on the balance of probabilities". However, these are simple English words and it is difficult to see how their meaning could be improved upon, particularly when it was emphasised - as it was emphasised - that the standard of proof was lower than that applicable to the Crown. We accordingly reject this criticism also.
[10] For these reasons we are satisfied that there was no misdirection on the part of the trial judge and we refuse that ground of appeal.
Insufficiency of proof that the contents of the holdalls as transported by the appellant were the packages of amphetamine later analysed by forensic scientists and produced at the trial
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.