Where the prosecution leads evidence from two witnesses whose versions of the same alleged offence differ in fundamental respects including location, surrounding circumstances and aftermath, the prosecution must elect which version it relies upon or further particularise the charge. A direction that the jury need not determine location is erroneous in such circumstances, and a resulting conviction will be unsafe where the factual basis of the jury's verdict cannot be identified. The general rule that averments as to place are immaterial does not apply where the nature of the evidence and conduct of the case render location vital to identifying the act relied upon.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.