An aggregate of errors — including improper judicial interventions during cross-examination, impermissible Palmer cross-examination, non-compliance with s 38 of the Evidence Act 2008, failure to give a mandatory screen direction under s 361 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, and an erroneous jury direction on inconsistencies in sexual offence evidence — may cumulatively constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice even where no single error alone is sufficient. The failure of defence counsel to object is a relevant but not determinative factor in assessing whether errors caused a miscarriage of justice; the majority and dissent disagreed on the weight to be given to such forensic decisions. A trial judge cannot give a direction on inconsistencies in sexual offence evidence as a direction of law in the absence of legislative authority, even where the direction reflects what became s 54D of the Jury Directions Act 2015.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.