In sexual assault cases that are essentially oath against oath, the Crown may not cross-examine the accused to drive him into saying the complainant fabricated her evidence, nor suggest that evidence is recently invented because defence counsel did not put it to the complainant. A trial judge's direction that the accused need not prove motive for false allegations does not overcome the effect of persistent impermissible cross-examination. The combination of impermissible cross-examination, inadequate re-examination, and a prosecutor's address capitalising on the impermissible material will result in a miscarriage of justice even where the Crown case is strong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.