R v Trabolsi

[2018] SASCFC 57

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Prior inconsistent statements
6. › Whether preconditions for admission under s 28 of Evidence Act 1929 (SA) satisfied
7. › Whether substance of prior statement sufficiently put to witness
8. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), ss 28, 29
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Cross-examination
4. › Prior inconsistent statements
5. › Oral statements
6. › Degree of precision required when putting prior statement to witness
7. › Whether effect of words sufficient or precise words required
8. › Statements in foreign language
9. › Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 28
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Cross-examination
4. › Prior inconsistent statements
5. › Inconsistency
6. › Whether prior statement reasonably open to construction inconsistent with testimony
7. › Ambiguous statements in foreign language translation

Quick Take

Section 28 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) does not require that the precise words of a prior inconsistent oral statement be put to the witness in cross-examination; it is sufficient to put the effect or substance of the statement, qualified by words such as 'something along those lines' or 'words to the effect'. The degree of precision required depends on the nature of the independent evidence intended to be led. Where a prior inconsistent statement was made in a foreign language and a recording exists, playing the recording to the witness combined with putting the contended effect of the words may satisfy the preconditions, even without a verbatim translation being available at the time of cross-examination.