A defence counsel's decision to advise an accused not to give evidence, where supported by rational forensic considerations including the likelihood of damaging cross-examination on criminal history and the implausibility of the accused's account, will not constitute incompetence giving rise to a miscarriage of justice, even where the accused's evidence would have been the only direct challenge to the key Crown witness's account. In Queensland, there is no prescription for what may be said in a defence opening statement, and the parameters for the exercise of the trial judge's discretion are what the interests of justice require; ordinarily it serves those interests to permit identification of the issues and parts of the Crown case in significant dispute, but it is not the role of an opening statement to identify the evidence intended to be adduced.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.