Cross-examination of an accused on collateral matters that portrays the accused as a discreditable person, rather than tending rationally and logically to weaken confidence in the accused's veracity, goes beyond the bounds of legitimate cross-examination as to credit and may ground a finding of substantial miscarriage of justice. Trial judges have a duty to restrain such cross-examination even absent objection from defence counsel.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.