An agreement by an accused that a co-accused not be cross-examined, where the co-accused's version conflicts with the accused's original instructions, constitutes in substance an adoption of the co-accused's version of events and an abandonment of the original instructions. The adequacy of a trial judge's summing up is assessed by reference to the case actually put by defence counsel, not the case the accused wished to put but did not instruct counsel to advance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.