What are the exceptions to the Browne v Dunn rule?

The Browne v Dunn rule establishes that if a party intends to challenge a witness’s credibility or contradict their evidence, they must give that witness the opportunity to respond to the contradiction during their testimony. This principle is primarily aimed at ensuring fairness in cross-examination and allowing witnesses to clarify or defend their statements.

In the context of exceptions to this rule, it is recognized that notice can be given in clear and obvious cases. This means that if a contradiction is so evident that the witness could easily address it, the party challenging the evidence may not be required to provide formal notice. This allows for a more efficient process and recognizes that in some situations, the requirement for notice may be unnecessary, as the witness would likely be aware of the issues they need to address without needing explicit prompting.

Other options may reference circumstances that don't align with established legal principles under the Browne v Dunn rule, such as suggesting contradictions can be made without any notice at all or speculating that exceptions solely apply to types of witnesses, such as expert witnesses. However, these do not accurately reflect exceptions as understood in legal practice, as all witnesses have a right to respond to contradictions relevant to their testimony.