A trial judge's reference to the interest of the accused in the outcome of the trial, even if technically infringing the Robinson/Stafford prohibition, does not necessarily vitiate a conviction where the direction was made to redress the balance in favour of the accused and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The Petty v The Queen principle against drawing adverse inferences from silence does not apply where the accused did not exercise the right to silence but instead spoke to witnesses after the incident without mentioning the defence later raised at trial, and subsequently sought to establish through earlier self-serving statements that the defence had always been the same. The majority and dissent disagreed on whether the proviso could cure the combined effect of both errors.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.