Where a prosecutor clearly distinguishes between post-offence conduct relied upon for credibility and conduct relied upon for consciousness of guilt, and the trial judge maintains that distinction in the charge, no additional direction is required warning the jury not to use credibility evidence as consciousness of guilt evidence. Where multiple offences arise from a single incident treated by both parties as related events occurring moments apart, and there is no evidentiary basis to distinguish between the offences in terms of the accused's reasoning, no direction is required that consciousness of guilt evidence be linked to the specific actus reus of each offence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.