A trial judge may draw the jury's attention to inconsistencies between an accused's evidence and prior statements without compromising the fairness of the trial, provided the inconsistencies are introduced carefully and their significance is left to the jury. The question of proportionality in provocation is subsumed in the ordinary person test, and a reference to proportionality as a rationale for introducing that test will not mislead the jury where the test itself is clearly and correctly stated. Where both counsel agree to the form of an intoxication direction and the effects of alcohol are common ground, the trial judge is not required to give further directions beyond those agreed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.