The prosecution had been allowed to re-examine its witness to demonstrate inconsistencies.
Held: The Court doubted the legitimacy of such a course, and set out the three exceptions to the rule, namely recent complaints in sexual cases, statements forming part of the res gestae and statements rebutting an allegation of recent fabrication (as in this case). ‘There is no general further fourth exception to the effect that where counsel cross-examined to show inconsistencies, the witness can be re-examined to show consistency’.
Judges:
Lane CJ
Citations:
[1989] 89 Cr App R 302
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ali CACD 14-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for sexual assaults on young girls. He complained that the prosecution had been allowed to bring in evidence of previous consistent statements.
Held: The evidence of the mother had been admitted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.187957