A prosecutor's intemperate criticisms of defence counsel's cross-examination in closing address, particularly where implicitly endorsed by the trial judge's comments, can give rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice by undermining the accused's primary defence of challenging the complainant's credibility. Defence counsel's failure to tender documents recording prior inconsistent statements of a complainant, where the failure is objectively inexplicable as a forensic decision, constitutes a substantial miscarriage of justice. The proper scope of judicial directions under ss 52 and 53 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) regarding psychological coping strategies remains an open question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.