A Crown Prosecutor's rhetorical question asking the jury to consider whether witnesses have reasons to lie will not necessarily constitute a miscarriage of justice where, in context, the question is implicitly confined to the particular motives raised in cross-examination and the trial judge gives clear directions on the presumption of innocence and onus of proof. Cross-examination putting to the accused that he is lying to get out of trouble, while undesirable, does not necessarily impair trial fairness where it falls short of the explicit comparisons found objectionable in Robinson v The Queen. Where a sentencing judge's evident intention regarding the overall ratio of non-parole period to total sentence is not translated into the sentences imposed due to the effect of partial accumulation, this constitutes error warranting appellate intervention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.