A Crown case based on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant in a sexual assault trial ought not be described as a 'comparatively weak Crown case', given Parliament's removal of the corroboration warning requirement. The Markuleski direction need not specifically reference the contradictory evidence of a particular witness; the abstract formulation is sufficient and may be forensically preferable for the defence. Where a proposition of deliberate falsehood is not put to a witness in cross-examination, the question whether the jury may nonetheless reject that witness's evidence and on what basis remains a live issue, with the majority and dissent taking different views.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.