The decision confirms that the two-stage test for miscarriage of justice based on defence counsel's incompetence requires first establishing a material irregularity (assessed objectively by whether there could be any reasonable explanation for counsel's decision) and then demonstrating a significant possibility that the irregularity affected the outcome. In sexual offence cases involving child complainants, the potential value of good character evidence must be weighed against the risk that cross-examination of character witnesses may reveal damaging information that reinforces the prosecution case. A forensic decision not to cross-examine a complainant on each individual count is capable of reasonable explanation where doing so risks allowing the complainant to repeat and solidify her evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.