Cross-examination of an accused person designed to elicit a statement that the complainant is lying or has concocted a story is impermissible, and a trial judge's characterisation of the defence case as asserting concoction and perjury — where the accused was driven to that position by such cross-examination — constitutes demonstrable error that obscures the onus of proof. A complainant's own evidence about the accused's subsequent conduct cannot constitute 'corroboration' as it is not independent evidence. The use of the word 'balance' in jury directions is apt to detract from the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.