Hofer v The Queen (2021) 95 ALJR 937

Facts: Defendant (D) was convicted of sexual offences against two complainants (Cs). At trial, D’s evidence contradicted C’s testimonies, however, the rule in Browne v Dunn was not observed by D counsel. In response to D counsel’s non-observance of the rule, the prosecution (Pr) cross-examined D, suggesting parts of D’s evidence were a recent invention (e.g. “Are you just making things up as you go along?”). D appealed on this ground. 

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now