Evidence of prior consistent statements made by an accused to third parties shortly after a police interview is admissible under both s 66 (hearsay exception where maker available) and s 108 (re-establishing credibility after prior inconsistent statement admitted) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), and may be led in evidence-in-chief rather than only in re-examination. Where misunderstandings between judge and counsel lead to relevant and significant evidence not being adduced, a substantial miscarriage of justice may be occasioned regardless of whether the failure to lead the evidence was a forensic choice. A prosecutor who wishes to allege collusion between the accused and a defence witness in final address should first seek to recall the accused so the allegation can be put to them.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.