Narkle v The Queen

(2001) 23 WAR 468; [2001] WASCA 31

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Prior inconsistent statements
4. › Collateral evidence rule
5. › Whether prior statement 'relative to the subject-matter of the proceeding'
6. › Whether matter went to credit only or to facts in issue
7. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 21
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Collateral evidence rule
4. › Exceptions
5. › Whether categories of exceptions are closed
6. › Flexible approach to exclusionary principle
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Evidence
4. › Credibility of complainant
5. › Whether distinction between credit and issue reduced to vanishing point in sexual cases
6. › Rejection of special rule for sexual cases

Quick Take

The word 'relative' in s 21 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) means 'relevant to proof of a fact in issue', not merely relevant to the credibility of the witness. A prior inconsistent statement that goes only to the complainant's credit and has no relevance to the facts charged in the indictment cannot be proved under s 21 if the witness denies making it. The proposition in Cross on Evidence that in sexual cases the distinction between credit and issue is reduced to vanishing point is rejected as unsupported by authority and wrong in principle.