Where a prior statement is ruled inadmissible for all purposes (as distinct from being admitted for a limited purpose under s 136), the jury must be directed to disregard it entirely; a direction permitting use of answers about the excluded statement to assess credit is erroneous and may constitute a miscarriage of justice. Where evidence of an accused's disposition for violence is admitted in re-examination to explain a witness's prior inconsistent statement, a direction against propensity reasoning must be given.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.