A VARE interview conducted approximately 56 hours after an incident, in a formal setting where the complainant was invited to reflect on events, does not satisfy the 'shortly after' requirement in s 65(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), even where the incident was traumatic. The focus of s 65(2)(b) is on whether the representor was still under the 'proximate pressure' of the event, not on whether the event was fresh in memory. However, such a VARE may still be admissible under s 65(2)(c) where the circumstances — including the traumatic nature of the event, the coherence of the account, and the absence of obvious impairment — make it highly probable the representation is reliable. Prior consistent representations may be taken into account as a relevant circumstance under s 65(2)(c).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.