A trial judge's failure to perfectly direct a jury on prior inconsistent statements will not occasion a miscarriage of justice where the significance of the inconsistencies and the circumstances accounting for them are obvious on the face of the evidence. A direction to continue deliberating after just over four hours, expressed in open and non-coercive terms with an implicit acknowledgment that the jury may not reach a verdict, does not place undue pressure on the jury. A warning against joining in a verdict not honestly held (per [name withheld] v The Queen) is not required in such circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members.