Where a trial judge gives a full Edwards direction in respect of lies told to police and then directs that 'the same process applies' to other post-offence conduct (such as washing blood or setting up a false narrative), the direction is adequate and need not be repeated in full for each category of conduct. The trial judge is not obliged to identify specific innocent explanations for post-offence conduct; it is sufficient to direct that the jury must be satisfied the conduct was motivated by consciousness of guilt and not due to some other reason. Evidence of washing blood is not intractably neutral between assault and manslaughter where it forms part of a course of conduct to conceal involvement in the killing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.