Cross-examination of an accused that repeatedly asks whether a complainant is lying is inappropriate because it risks shifting the jury's focus from whether the prosecution has proved its case to whether the defence has established that a witness was lying. However, such cross-examination will not necessarily cause a miscarriage of justice where the factual dispute is clearly drawn. The South Australian position continues to decline to follow the Markuleski direction, and a direction that findings on one count may be considered in relation to other counts, while unhelpful, does not necessarily undermine a separate consideration direction or invite impermissible propensity reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.