The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require the Crown to put specific propositions about mental elements to an accused in cross-examination where the accused is otherwise clearly on notice of the case against him from the indictment and Crown evidence. Compliance with the rule may be achieved by means other than putting specific propositions in cross-examination. A trial judge's corrective direction to the jury regarding misleading submissions by defence counsel will not give rise to a miscarriage of justice, particularly where no objection was taken at the conclusion of the summing-up.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.