A Robinson direction is not required merely because the Crown's case relies on the uncorroborated testimony of a very young complainant; the appellant must identify a peculiar or exceptional factor placing them at a forensic disadvantage clear to the trial judge but unobvious to the jury. The prosecution is not obliged to lead a record of interview that is self-serving and exculpatory in nature where it does not seek to rely on any portion of it; the obligation in Mahmood v Western Australia to lead mixed statements applies where the prosecution intends to rely on part of the statement. A Robinson direction need not use the word 'warn' or 'warning' provided it conveys a real sense of warning, and the listing of inconsistencies need not be temporally proximate to the warning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.