Inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence relating to peripheral matters (events preceding the alleged offence) do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the complainant's account of the central events founding the charge. A Crown Prosecutor who has cross-examined a Crown witness under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 is not required to put to the witness in terms that the witness was lying or deliberately tailoring evidence before submitting to the jury that the witness's evidence was designed to assist the accused; the cross-examination itself provides sufficient notice and opportunity to respond.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.