Where defence counsel raises the possibility that similarities in complainants' evidence may be explained by unconscious influence or innocent infection from media publicity (as distinct from deliberate collusion), the trial judge must give a specific direction that the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that such influence is not the explanation before using probability reasoning based on similar fact evidence. A direction limited to collusion is insufficient. The word 'dangerous' is not an indispensable requirement of a Longman warning, provided the substance of the warning — that the jury should be aware of the forensic disadvantage to the accused caused by delay — is conveyed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 40 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 40 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.