‘The evidence of a witness cannot be corroborated by proving statements to the same effect previously made by him; nor will the fact that his testimony is impeached in cross-examination render such evidence admissible. Even if the impeachment takes the form of showing a contradiction or inconsistency between the evidence given at the trial and something said by the witness on a former occasion.’
Judges:
Holmes J
Citations:
(1889) 25 LR Ir 522
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 . .
Approved – Regina v Oyesiku CACD 1971
The court considered the admissibility of evidence of consistent statements in order to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. There may be a residual discretion with the judge to permit re-examination to show consistency when there is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187962
