Where the prosecution relies on inconsistencies between multiple out-of-court statements as lies demonstrating consciousness of guilt, the specific lie must be identified with precision before an Edwards direction can be given. A failure to identify the specific lie risks leaving the jury with the impermissible proposition that the accused is generally a liar. Where proving the asserted lie is arguably tantamount to proving the offence itself, the lie becomes an indispensable link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, and an Edwards direction permitting the jury to use the lie as merely one piece of circumstantial evidence carries a substantial risk of impermissible reasoning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.