Where trial counsel conflates instructions and misapprehends the significance of a critical prosecution witness's evidence, leading to cross-examination that reinforces rather than undermines that evidence, and where the same misapprehension infects advice to the accused not to give evidence, the cumulative effect may constitute a miscarriage of justice even though the decision not to give evidence carried an obvious forensic advantage. The case illustrates that a 'constructive failure to cross-examine' — where cross-examination is conducted but on a basis bound to fail — can be as significant as a complete failure to cross-examine.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.