Following the 2009 insertion of s 66(2A), the phrase 'fresh in the memory' in s 66(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is no longer to be interpreted as meaning 'recent' or 'immediate' as determined by the High Court in Graham v The Queen. The nature of the event concerned, particularly where it involves traumatic events such as child sexual assault, is now a significant factor that may support a finding of freshness even where the complaint is made years after the events. Inconsistencies or inexactness in the details of a complaint go to weight (a jury question), not to admissibility under s 66(2). The relevant inquiry under s 66(2) is whether the essence of the occurrence as represented was fresh in memory, not whether peripheral details such as precise dates were accurately stated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 27 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 27 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.