Cross-examination of an accused pressing them to state that other Crown witnesses are lying is impermissible and will likely result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly where credibility is the central issue. Trial judges must exercise considerable caution in giving prominence to Browne v Dunn directions in criminal summing-ups, and should not draw adverse inferences against the accused from defence counsel's failure to cross-examine a witness without considering the forensic context and the many possible explanations for the omission. The proviso will not save a conviction where the miscarriage was caused by the Crown Prosecutor's impermissible conduct.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.