The Crown is not entitled to lead evidence in chief that reveals an accused's prior criminal history for the purpose of anticipatory rebuttal of an expected attack on a complainant's credit for delayed complaint. Even where a statement is admissible as part of the res gestae, separate evidence giving context to that statement (such as evidence of prior imprisonment) may not be led in chief if its relevance is confined to the complainant's credit. Where such evidence is improperly admitted and is highly prejudicial, the proviso cannot save the conviction because the defence has been deprived of the forensic choice whether to cross-examine on delayed complaint.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.