Where a breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn is invoked as affecting credibility rather than as the basis for a judicial order, the question whether a discrepancy exists between the cross-examination and the evidence is one for the jury, not the judge. The judge should only direct the jury that a discrepancy exists where it is incontestable, and should instruct them there is nothing to act on where no reasonable jury could find a discrepancy.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.