Section 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 is not limited to prior consistent statements of the particular witness in the witness box against whom the allegation of fabrication is made; it extends to prior consistent statements of any witness whose evidence has been or will be suggested to have been fabricated or reconstructed. However, evidence admitted under s 108(3) is admissible only on the question of credibility, not as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted. Trial judges should take evidence on the voir dire rather than relying on bar table statements when ruling on s 108(3) applications. The question of whether a specific direction on 'wilful blindness' is required was left open, but no specific direction is mandated provided the summing up as a whole does not distract the jury from the issue of knowledge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.