Where the defence alleges fabrication of a complainant's evidence, prior consistent statements are admissible in the Crown case in chief under s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and at minimum are admissible in reply. Graham v The Queen (1998) is distinguishable where the allegation of fabrication loomed large at trial and the time of alleged fabrication was identified. Jury verdicts of guilty on some sexual assault counts and not guilty on others are not necessarily inconsistent where rational explanations exist for the differing verdicts, such as doubt about timing or doubt about penetration.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.