Where a defence raises unanticipated evidence that the prosecution could not have foreseen, the prosecution's recall of a witness (including the accused) for further cross-examination is not a 'reopening' of the prosecution case but permissible rebuttal. The Killick v The Queen concerns about inflated importance of late prosecution evidence do not apply where the recalled evidence is from the accused himself and the last thing the jury hears is the accused's own explanation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.