Questions in cross-examination inviting a witness to say whether another witness is lying are inadmissible, not merely improper as a matter of professional practice. When the rule in Browne v Dunn is invoked in a criminal trial, the trial judge must direct the jury on the possibility of innocent explanations for counsel's failure to cross-examine (such as misunderstanding or error) and must direct that the jury should be satisfied there is no other reasonable explanation before drawing adverse inferences against the accused's credibility. The observance or non-observance of the rule should not become the focus of a trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.