The content of the obligation of fairness under the rule in Browne v Dunn varies with the age and capacity of the witness. When cross-examining a child witness, counsel must ordinarily address the specific allegations the defence disputes and give the child a fair opportunity to say whether their account is true, rather than relying on broad general questions or suggestive puttage. Apparent inconsistencies elicited through indirect or subtle questioning methods may not serve the forensic purpose of creating a reasonable doubt, as the jury is entitled to treat the VARE as the child's reliable account if the cross-examination did not fairly challenge it. Trial judges should consider holding pre-evidence hearings to discuss the capacity of child witnesses and the form of questioning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.