The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and appealed on two grounds: the trial judge erred by allowing expert evidence on the likelihood of a drug organization using a blind courier, and by not providing a limiting instruction to the jury.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in admitting the expert evidence, particularly because defence counsel introduced the topic during cross-examination and agreed to the rephrased question.
The court also found no need for a limiting instruction as the evidence was not prejudicial and its exploration was a tactical decision by the defence.
