Defence counsel's failure to put a case theory (as distinct from instructions) to a complainant does not necessarily result in a miscarriage of justice where the proposed cross-examination would have served no forensic purpose given the strength of the complaint evidence. Trial judges should exercise caution in directing juries about defence counsel's failure to put propositions to witnesses, particularly where the failure may be inadvertent or an exercise of forensic judgment. An accused should not bear the burden of negative inferences arising from counsel's errors or forensic judgment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.