A prosecution may tender a s 34CA statement and also call the protected witness to give oral evidence on the same topics, but where the witness simply repeats the statement content (rather than filling gaps or resolving ambiguities), there is no reason to admit the statement under the s 34CA(1) discretion. The court retains inherent power to control repetitive questioning. On adequacy of reasons, a trial judge need not give a detailed summary of every inconsistency provided the reasons demonstrate awareness of the inconsistencies and clearly set out the basis for the decision.
The full text is available to signed-in members.