A mere denial of the events alleged in a sexual offence prosecution does not, without more, constitute a suggestion of fabrication, reconstruction or suggestion sufficient to satisfy the condition precedent for the grant of leave to admit prior consistent statements on credibility under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Even if denial could be characterised as such a suggestion, the restraint from further attacking credibility is a material factor militating against the grant of leave. Complaint evidence that is not fresh in memory is inadmissible under s 66 as an exception to the hearsay rule, and leave under s 108(3) must be separately sought and considered with reference to the criteria in s 192.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.