The Queen v IMM (No 2)

[2013] NTSC 44

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Exception to hearsay rule
4. › Previous representations
5. › Fresh in the memory
6. › Nature of event, age of person, and period of time
7. › Sexual offences against children
8. › Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), ss 66(2), 66(2A)
1. Evidence
2. › Relevance
3. › Out-of-court representations
4. › Complaint evidence in sexual offence cases
5. › Whether representations of sexual misconduct relevant to facts in issue
6. › Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), s 55
1. Evidence
2. › Discretionary exclusion
3. › Probative value versus prejudicial effect
4. › Evidence taken at its highest
5. › Whether danger of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value
6. › Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), ss 135, 137
1. Evidence
2. › Credibility
3. › Bolstering rule
4. › Previous consistent statements
5. › Whether evidence of writing poems to prompt disclosure admissible
6. › Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), s 137

Quick Take

In child sexual abuse cases, the 'fresh in the memory' requirement under s 66(2A) of the UEA is readily satisfied given the nature of the offences and the age of the complainant, even where representations are made up to 12 months after the last incident. Evidence of a complainant writing poems or similar documents to prompt disclosure is inadmissible as impermissible bolstering of the complainant's own evidence.