A Jones v Dunkel direction against an accused for failing to call an alleged accomplice is inappropriate where the accomplice's evidence would require complex directions (s 165(1)(d) warning, potential unreliability, s 38 questioning) and where the accused is merely putting the Crown to proof without raising an affirmative defence. Where a witness's name was introduced by Crown witnesses and there are complicating factors such as self-incrimination privilege, the Crown cannot seek a Jones v Dunkel direction against the accused for not calling that witness. In such cases, the appropriate direction is that the jury should not speculate about uncalled witnesses and should decide the case on the evidence before them.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.