A brief inquiry by a trial judge under s 18 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) will be adequate where the judge is entitled to proceed on the basis that the witness has received independent legal advice and the witness is given the opportunity to identify the harm that would follow from giving evidence. Jury questioning of witnesses that is relevant and responsive to the evidence adduced, and does not open up new areas the parties had refrained from addressing, will not constitute a fundamental irregularity even where the questions are asked orally rather than submitted in writing. A trial judge's comment that acceptance of the prosecution's factual case would go a long way to negativing self-defence does not amount to impermissible comment where the trial has developed into a contest between starkly differing factual accounts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.