A delay of more than 20 years between the alleged events and the making of a complaint is so far beyond what the legislature contemplated when enacting s 66(2A) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) as to make it impossible to say the 'fresh in the memory' requirement is met, absent specific evidence that the matters were relevantly fresh in the complainant's memory. Alleged admissions that lack precision and specificity, combined with a claim of no recollection, may have their probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice under s 137. The question whether XY gives sufficient emphasis to the temporal factor within the concept of 'fresh in the memory' remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.