The Markuleski direction need not follow any precise formula and its adequacy depends on the circumstances; where a single occasion is involved with a narrow issue of consent, a direction emphasising the complainant's credibility as the crucial issue may suffice without expressly stating that doubt on one count should be used when assessing evidence on other counts. The distinction between admissibility of out-of-court statements under the Evidence Act 1995 and the common law directions on complaint evidence means there is no obligation to direct the jury that the accused's denials are admissible on the same basis as complaint evidence. Shaw J's dissent provides a detailed framework for when a full Markuleski direction is required.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.