Evidence of police misconduct occurring significantly after the events at trial (here, 3 to 24 years later) is not capable of bearing upon the officer's credibility at the earlier relevant time and lacks the substantial probative value required for admission under s 103(1) of the Evidence Act 1995. While a jury may readily infer continuing dishonesty from past dishonesty, the reverse inference — from later dishonesty to earlier honesty — becomes increasingly tentative with temporal distance. Prior fresh evidence cases in the NSWCCA involving police misconduct all concerned conduct contemporaneous with or close to the trial events.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.