Where a cross-examiner elicits evidence from an opposing expert that is allegedly outside the expert's field of expertise, the cross-examiner's forensic choice to ask the question implies acceptance that the expert is capable of answering within their expertise, and a failure to object at trial greatly diminishes the prospect of establishing a miscarriage of justice on appeal. The rule in Browne v Dunn does not require the Crown to cross-examine its own witnesses on matters that are not part of the Crown case and that only arose through speculation elicited by defence counsel. A trial judge's decision to defer ruling on a discharge application as premature is within case management discretion and does not constitute a denial of procedural fairness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.