R v Sood (Ruling No 2) [2006] NSWSC 732

R v Sood (Ruling No 2) [2006] NSWSC 732

Having found that cross-examination raised issues of fabrication and inconsistency, and that the evidence is important to assessing the main witness's credibility and reliability on central disputed facts, and that no countervailing unfairness arises under s192(2), leave was granted to admit the affidavit as a prior consistent statement.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Accused: Suman Sood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statement, Credibility of Witness, Evidence Act S108
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statement Credibility of Witness Evidence Act S108

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Suman Sood

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavit of witness is admissible as a prior consistent statement under s108 of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

Having found that cross-examination raised issues of fabrication and inconsistency, and that the evidence is important to assessing the main witness's credibility and reliability on central disputed facts, and that no countervailing unfairness arises under s192(2), leave was granted to admit the affidavit as a prior consistent statement.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted