Where evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admitted in cross-examination as to credit, s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 makes it evidence of the fact, subject to the court's discretion under s 136 to limit its use. A prior consistent statement admitted under s 108(3)(a) rationally answers an attack on credibility based on prior inconsistent statements where the consistent statement was made at about the same time and is coupled with an explanation for the inconsistency connected with the truth of the consistent statement. Leave under Rule 4 will ordinarily not be granted where the failure to take a point at trial is explicable as a tactical decision.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.