A mere allegation of fabrication in cross-examination does not invoke the recent invention doctrine; there must be a suggestion of fabrication at or after a particular time such that a prior consistent statement can answer the allegation. However, once prior consistent statements are properly admitted for any purpose (including to establish context of cross-examined passages), they may be used to assess the witness's credibility by reference to the consistency of the account, not merely to establish discredit.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.