Where the prosecution relies on post-offence conduct to negate a defence of intoxication or incapacity to form intent, trial judges must take particular care not to conflate that use with consciousness of guilt reasoning. Contradictory directions — first attributing to the Crown a consciousness of guilt argument it did not advance, then directing the jury not to reason in that way — may give rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice even where the charge is otherwise carefully formulated. The tension between contradictory passages must be resolved, not merely left for the jury to reconcile.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.