Where the Crown case rests on alleged lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the trial judge must identify the specific lies relied upon with precision (not merely 'in general terms') and must direct the jury on all reasonably possible motivations for lying other than consciousness of guilt, including reluctance to implicate associates, fear of retribution, and the possibility of innocent involvement after the event. A direction limited to one alternative motivation (fear of false implication) is inadequate where the circumstances are 'fraught with possibilities'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.