A Browne v Dunn direction should not be given where the purported inconsistencies between the accused's evidence and Crown witness evidence do not in fact exist, or where the cross-examination of the accused was conducted on a false premise. In a case turning on credibility (oath against oath), an erroneous Browne v Dunn direction that unfairly bolsters Crown witness credibility while diminishing the accused's credibility will deprive the accused of a fair trial and cannot be saved by the proviso.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.