"When cross-examining another party's witness, an advocate must provide an opportunity for the witness to deny or explain the evidence of that party's own witness." Section 46 EA is the remedy to this, the rule itself is common law only. **THE DEFENCE CASE WAS NOT PUT TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESS.** At it's core: - A witness gives evidence-in-chief observing the accused at a bus stop. - Defence do **not** cross-examine on this evidence. - Defence call a new witness who says that the other witness couldn't have seen anything due to smoke obscuring their vision. - Browne v Dunn applies, because it wasn't ever put to the first witness. # The Case The case of **Browne v Dunn** (1893) is a landmark decision by the House of Lords that established the "Browne v Dunn rule" in the context of cross-examination. The rule essentially states that if a party intends to contradict a witness's testimony with evidence, they must first put that contradictory evidence to the witness during cross-examination, giving them an opportunity to respond. This rule aims to prevent "ambush" tactics and ensure fairness in legal proceedings. The case involved James Loxham Browne and solicitor Cecil W. Dunn. Browne commenced libel proceedings against Dunn and others after a document was issued requesting Dunn to apply for an order to keep the peace. During the trial, Browne produced the document, calling it a "sham," but did not show it to the signatories during cross-examination. The jury initially found in favor of Browne, but the verdict was later set aside on appeal. The House of Lords ultimately ruled that the contradictory evidence should have been put to the witnesses during cross-examination.