In sexual offence trials in Queensland where credibility is the central issue, the finality rule does not automatically exclude evidence contradicting a complainant's denial of having made or threatened false sexual complaints against third parties. Such evidence is admissible where it has real probative value with respect to the facts in issue and the time and cost of litigating it is not disproportionate. The three judges offered different analytical bases: McPherson JA favoured a general relaxation of the finality rule following McHugh J in Palmer; Thomas JA preferred treating such evidence as falling within the 'corruption' exception; White J favoured a case management discretion approach.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.