Cross-examination by the Crown prosecutor asking the accused whether Crown witnesses are lying remains impermissible, but where the adversarial character of the evidence has already been created by defence counsel's cross-examination and motives for lying have been established, the impermissible questions may not cause a miscarriage of justice. The distinction drawn in Palmer v The Queen between cross-examining a complainant to elicit a motive to lie and cross-examining an accused to show the accused cannot prove a motive to lie does not apply where a motive for lying has been established in evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.