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 ‘something either in the nature of the inconsistent statement, or in the use made of it by the cross-examiner, to enable such evidence to given’
(1971) 56 Cr App R 240
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Coll 1889
‘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 . .
CitedNominal Defendant v Clements 1961
(Australia) Dixon CJ said of the rules regarding the significance of previous inconsistent statements: ‘in as much as the rule forms a definite exception to the general principle excluding statements made out of court and admits a possibly . .
ApprovedNominal Defendant v Clements 1961
(Australia) Dixon CJ said of the rules regarding the significance of previous inconsistent statements: ‘in as much as the rule forms a definite exception to the general principle excluding statements made out of court and admits a possibly . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedAthwal and Others, Regina v CACD 7-May-2009
The appellants challenged their conviction for murder and sentences. The victim was the young second wife of the first defendant. It was said that she had been unfaithful, and having been lured to India, had been murdered there. She had disappeared, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 May 2021; Ref: scu.187961