An accomplice warning must not be given in a form that requires the jury to first find facts (including the commission of the crime) using the accomplice's own evidence before the warning applies. The proper approach is to direct the jury to assume the commission of the crime for the purpose of characterising the witness. Where the conditional nature of an accomplice warning creates difficulty — particularly where the witness's status depends on rejection of their own evidence — a Faure warning supplemented by a corroboration direction may be preferable. The proviso cannot cure such a misdirection where the accomplice's evidence was central to the Crown case and the jury's assessment of credibility was made without the benefit of the warning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.