Where the Crown case depends heavily on a single witness whose credibility is severely compromised by psychiatric instability, extensive drug use, and multiple contradictory prior accounts, corroboration of peripheral details is insufficient to sustain a conviction if none of the corroborative evidence goes to the critical elements of the offence — namely the alleged agreement and instigation. The jury's advantage in assessing demeanour cannot overcome credibility deficiencies that are apparent from the record itself, including manifold inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness's evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.