Cross-examination of an accused that repeatedly puts to the accused that complainants are lying, where the accused has not raised this in evidence-in-chief, remains impermissible following Palmer v The Queen and will result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The trial judge has an independent obligation to intervene in such cross-examination even where defence counsel fails to object. The question whether cross-examination about an accused's failure to intervene in a complainant's crimes compensation application is impermissible was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.