A Longman warning may not be required where trial counsel concedes no forensic prejudice from delay and the accused was confronted with allegations close to the time of the events. Where a Longman warning is required, the majority held that the warning must convey the strength of the High Court's formulation, including the 'dangerous to convict' concept, and that a warning which addresses many but not all elements of the Longman direction may be found inadequate. The application of the proviso where a Longman warning is inadequate depends on the particular facts, including the strength of the warning actually given and whether the jury's verdicts demonstrate careful scrutiny of the evidence. The question of whether the precise Longman formulation is required or whether substantial compliance suffices remains a point of disagreement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.