Where an accused changes instructions after the close of the Crown case, trial counsel's decision not to recall the complainant, not to seek a jury discharge, and not to seek a direction on recent invention may be objectively rational and compelling, particularly where each remedial step would only highlight the damaging inconsistency in the accused's case. The forensically adverse treatment flowing from an accused's own change of instructions does not constitute an irregularity warranting discharge of the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.