An Edwards direction as to lies told in consciousness of guilt is not required where the prosecution relies on lies and post-offence conduct as part of a body of circumstantial evidence to attack credibility rather than as independent proof of guilt constituting admissions. The test is whether there was a real risk of impermissible reasoning by the jury, assessed objectively having regard to the totality of the addresses and the charge. Where motive is merely one factor in a range of circumstantial evidence and is not an essential link in sequential reasoning towards guilt, no direction is required that motive be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.