Podiatric evidence comparing an accused's feet with shoes found at a crime scene is admissible expert evidence under the [name withheld] test, at least on the limited basis that the shoes 'could have been worn' by the accused. An illiterate witness may refresh memory by having a prior verified statement read aloud to them. Where a defence witness has made prior inconsistent statements to police implicating the accused, the Crown may call rebuttal evidence to prove those statements even where the Crown could not have anticipated the need until after the witness testified.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.