Where defence counsel deliberately insists on the admission of prejudicial propensity evidence as part of a strategy to undermine the complainant's credibility through inconsistent accounts, the decision is explicable as a rational forensic choice and no miscarriage of justice arises. The appellate court need not consider whether the admission constituted a miscarriage of justice where a rational forensic justification can be discerned.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.