Post-offence conduct that is by itself equally consistent with consciousness of guilt of a lesser offence may nevertheless be left to the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt of the charged offence where, in the context of the totality of the evidence, it is capable of sustaining that inference. The [name withheld]/[name withheld] line of authority on consciousness of guilt directions is confined to cases where the accused admits involvement in the actus reus and the issue is limited to intent; where the accused denies any involvement in the actus reus, post-offence conduct may be relevant to consciousness of guilt of the charged offence. A trial judge is not required to define 'dangerous' in the context of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act where the dangerousness of the act is self-evident.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.