Where a s 165(1)(c) unreliability warning is sought on the basis of a witness's mental ill health, the requesting party must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidence is of a kind that a jury acting rationally may consider to be unreliable. A full and open exposure before the jury of the asserted unreliability, with all potential weaknesses explored, may constitute 'good reasons' under s 165(3) for not giving the warning, particularly where there is no hidden or lurking danger of which the jury would not be aware. The question whether s 165(1) requires assessment of the actual evidence (the Flood approach) or merely a generalised class-based assessment (the Lane/Stewart approach) remains unresolved in Victoria.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.