Where the inconsistency relied upon by defence counsel in closing address is between the complainant's evidence and the appellant's evidence (rather than within the prosecution case), the trial judge may appropriately direct the jury that the relevant matter was not put to the complainant in cross-examination, provided the direction does not amount to a direction that an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused. There is no rule of law requiring a specific direction that the jury is not bound to accept unchallenged expert evidence; a general direction that the jury may accept or reject any witness's evidence is sufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.