The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require a prosecutor to put to defence witnesses an inference of concoction that is drawn from the striking similarities in the defence evidence as a whole; the defence can be taken to know of such matters. Where the only response to a direct proposition of concoction would be a bare denial, the failure to put the proposition does not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.