R v Kilincer (No. 9)

In this case, the respondent was charged with the murder of a 15-year-old girl. The respondent applied to cross-examine the victim’s brother, who was called as a witness by the Crown. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the witness’s evidence was not unfavourable or inconsistent, and that the respondent had not satisfied the criteria for leave to cross-examine the witness. The court was required to determine whether the respondent was entitled to cross-examine the witness, and if so, on what grounds. The court held that the witness’s evidence was indeed unfavourable and inconsistent, and that the respondent had satisfied the criteria for leave to cross-examine. The court found that the witness had given evidence that was not only inconsistent with his earlier statements, but also clearly unfavourable to the Crown. The court noted that the witness had been in the respondent’s “camp” during the relevant period, and that his evidence had the potential to significantly undermine the Crown’s case. The court concluded that the respondent was entitled to cross-examine the witness, and that the application should be granted. The court further held that the respondent was entitled to ask the witness about the inconsistencies between his evidence and his earlier statements, as well as any other matters that were relevant to the witness’s credibility or the facts in issue. The court emphasised that the respondent’s right to a fair trial included the right to cross-examine witnesses who gave evidence against him, and that this right was not to be lightly restricted. The court granted the respondent’s application to cross-examine the witness, and directed that the cross-examination take place on the following day. The court also ordered that the witness be given notice of the grounds on which he would be cross-examined, in order to ensure that he was prepared to answer questions on those matters.