A full Longman warning (that it is 'dangerous to convict' unless the evidence is scrutinised with great care) is required only where the circumstances are outside the jury's ordinary experience and understanding, particularly where delay has prejudiced the accused's ability to conduct a defence. Mere delay in making complaint, without more, ordinarily requires only a balanced comment (not a full warning), especially given the statutory requirement under s 61(1)(b) to inform the jury that there may be good reasons for delay. The question whether a charge amounts to a binding direction or mere comment must be assessed by reference to the charge as a whole, including the mandatory language used and the overall structure, not by isolated references to 'comment'. The failure of experienced counsel to take exception to the charge is a significant indicator that the charge was sufficient in tone and effect.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.