21 Apr 1988
Section 3(2) creates a defence that can rebut the presumptions in s.19; once s.19 presumptions arise the evidential/burden onus shifts to defendants to prove lawfulness on a more likely than not basis, and applying that legal framework to the facts the Court found the gambling was a social occasion so the convictions could not stand.
24 Sept 1987
Once it is proved that a person gambled in a gambling establishment (including by the statutory presumptions in s19 arising from authorised police entry), the offence under section 6 is made out because a 'gambling establishment' by definition involves unlawful gambling; the prosecution need not separately prove that the gambling was unlawful and section 18 does not apply to section 6.
14 Dec 1982
Convictions for manufacturing were unsafe and must be set aside because the evidence did not establish an actual manufacturing process and s.6/s.45 must be read as creating distinct offences/presumptions; equipment/materials may support a presumption of preparatory acts but do not alone sustain a conviction for manufacturing where proof of process is lacking and expert evidence was equivocal; furthermore improper use or revelation of inadmissible statements in cross-examination of a co-defendant and a potentially confusing jury exchange about burden of proof caused prejudice to the conviction…