A decision not to cross-examine on particular topics will be assessed by reference to an objective standard of reasonableness, not the wisdom of counsel. Where cross-examination on a topic risks the admission of highly prejudicial evidence previously excluded, a decision not to cross-examine on that topic is objectively reasonable. Inconsistencies in a complainant's accounts that 'speak for themselves' may reasonably be left unexplored in cross-examination and instead deployed in closing address.
The full text is available to signed-in members.