Where a prosecutor's closing address describes an accused's lies in terms that invite inferential reasoning from lies to guilt (e.g., that the accused 'ducked and weaved', 'deflected' incriminating facts, or 'crafted' answers), a [name withheld] direction is required even where neither party requests one and even where the Crown does not formally rely on consciousness of guilt reasoning. However, where the claim of self-defence arises solely from the accused's record of interview and the jury must have rejected that account to convict, a guilty verdict may be found inevitable such that the failure to direct does not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.