Where a witness distinctly admits making a prior inconsistent statement under cross-examination, s 18 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) is not triggered and the statement is not 'proved by virtue of s 18'; accordingly, s 101 does not render the statement admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents — it remains admissible only on the issue of credibility. A co-accused's silence in the face of the other co-accused's false statements to third parties cannot be treated as adoption of those falsehoods unless the facts asserted were within the silent co-accused's personal knowledge, and the jury must be directed that they must be satisfied some response was called for and that by remaining silent the co-accused was adopting the falsehoods as their own.
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.