[name withheld]-examination of an accused as to whether Crown witnesses are lying or have perjured themselves is impermissible in Victoria, consistently with the position in all other Australian jurisdictions following [name withheld] v The Queen. A trial judge who dismisses objections to such cross-examination in a manner that conveys to the jury that the objections are unfounded compounds the error. Where similar fact/propensity evidence is admitted, the trial judge must warn the jury of the need to be satisfied the evidence is not the result of collaboration, unconscious influence or innocent infection, and must explain the proper reasoning process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 42 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 42 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.