A prior consistent statement that merely repeats the same assertion as the witness's trial evidence, without explaining the witness's thought processes or how the witness came to remember the relevant facts, does not assist in determining whether the evidence was the product of reconstruction, suggestion, or fabrication, and will not be admitted under s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The desirable practice of backdating sentences for pre-sentence custody applies only where the custody is exclusively referable to the offences for which sentence is being passed; where the offender was also in custody for other offences, the sentencing judge may instead state that credit has been given without backdating.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.