Evidence admissible under s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is not confined to the prior consistent statement itself but extends to the circumstances which led to the making of the statement, where those circumstances are relevant to rebutting the suggestion of fabrication. Section 108(3)(b) is not limited to prior consistent statements that predate the suggested time of fabrication; the timing of the statement is generally more important than the circumstances in which it was made, but this is not a universal or absolute rule. A full Longman warning is not required where the delay between the alleged offence and complaint is approximately six months and the accused was made aware of the allegations within that period.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.