A witness who does not claim to remember the precise words spoken in a conversation is not required to give evidence in direct speech; it is sufficient to state the substance or effect of the conversation from the impression left on memory. A trial judge who insists on direct speech for conversations recalled only in substance commits an error, though the proviso may apply if the error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. Where no objection is taken to evidence of recent complaint at trial and the failure to object may have been a deliberate forensic decision, an appellate court will be reluctant to find error in the trial judge's failure to exclude the evidence of his own motion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.