In NSW it has been held that the case law on inconsistent verdicts (e.g., Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439) makes it desirable to supplement the separate consideration direction in “word against word” cases[1] with a direction that the jury should take into account any unfavourable assessment they have made of the complainant’s credibility in relation to one count when assessing his or her evidence in relation to any other counts (R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; R v RAT (2000) 111 A Crim R 360; R v Robinson (2000) 111 A Crim R 388. See also R v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224).
In Victoria, such a direction is not allowed. Any rule of common law under which such a direction could be given has been abolished (Jury Directions Act s44F-44G, as amended in 2017).
Notes
[1] A "word against word" case is a case in which the only direct evidence of the commission of the offences is that of the complainant.
Last updated: 2 October 2017