The Court refused leave under s 32 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for a witness to revive his memory from a police statement made approximately 12 months after the events recorded, holding that the events were not 'fresh in the memory' at the time the statement was made. While adopting a generally liberal rather than restrictive approach to 'fresh in the memory' under s 32 (noting the absence of an amendment equivalent to s 66(2A)), the Court held that a 12-month gap was too significant, particularly where the only evidence of freshness was the witness's agreement with a leading question without further elaboration. The evidence being directed to rebutting anticipated good character evidence rather than a core issue further weighed against the grant of leave.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.