Where an accused lies about memory of events but admits the underlying act, the lie is not capable of constituting an Edwards lie (consciousness of guilt) if the truth would only implicate the accused in the admitted act rather than in the offence charged. Such lies are relevant only to credibility. Prosecutors should not rely on lies about memory as consciousness of guilt evidence where the lie does not relate to the material issue in dispute (here, consent).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.