Regina v Nazif: 1987

(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The complainant gave evidence of an indecent assault, whereas the evidence given of the complaint was of an assault; Somers J dealt with the issue (which was one among several) very shortly: ‘The third question arises from the fact that the witness of the complaint, Miss Reidy, gave no evidence that the prosecutrix had told her that she had been indecently assaulted; merely that she had been assaulted. It was submitted that evidence by way of a complaint was not admissible unless the complaint made referred in some way to its indecent character: The submission has little logic to support it. The purpose of the admission of evidence of complaint being to show consistency of the conduct of the prosecutrix with the evidence she has given as to what occurred; a simple complaint of assault made by her made proximately to the event must surely be capable of evidencing consistency. Whether it does so in fact will be a matter for the jury.’

Citations:

[1987] 2 NZLR 122

Cited by:

CitedSpooner, Eric Charles v Regina; (Evidence: Sex abuse) CACD 25-May-2004
The defendant appealed his convictions for child sex abuse, involving assault, rape and buggery, saying that evidence of a recent complaint by a schoolgirl friend of the complainant which was not consistent with other evidence of the complainant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198137