Section 106(d) of the Evidence Act 1995 does not permit the adduction of evidence that a witness was unable to recall matters to which their evidence relates; it is confined to evidence that a witness was unable to be aware of such matters. The words 'or recall' appearing in s 104(3)(b) cannot be read into s 106(d) because this would expand the sphere of operation of the provision. A deficient Longman direction does not result in a miscarriage of justice where the jury convicted only on corroborated evidence, since the Longman warning addresses the danger of convicting on the complainant's evidence alone. The presence or absence of corroboration remains a rational basis for differentiating between verdicts of conviction and acquittal on a multi-count indictment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.