Where cross-examination of an accused suggests that silence or inaction in response to allegations constitutes an implied admission, the trial judge must direct the jury that before drawing an adverse inference they must determine whether it is reasonable and justifiable and must exclude alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt. This obligation arises regardless of whether the Crown expressly characterises the evidence as consciousness of guilt evidence; the criterion is the risk of misunderstanding by the jury, not the subjective purpose of the prosecutor. The obligation is heightened in 'word against word' cases where the prosecution case depends entirely on the complainant's evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 28 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 28 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.