The case confirms that where the Crown relies on lies told by an accused as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the trial judge must both ascertain that the Crown intends to rely on the lies as probative evidence and satisfy herself that the lies are in fact capable of bearing that character before giving an Edwards direction. Lies established by independent evidence (such as testimony from third parties contradicting the accused's account) are properly characterised as probative lies warranting an Edwards direction, and do not involve the circular reasoning identified in R v Zheng.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.