R v AKB (No. 3) [2018] NSWSC 1076

WB was competent to give evidence within the meaning of s 13(3) because, after reviewing his interview transcripts and questioning him, the Court was satisfied that he understood the difference between truth and a lie and understood that he was under an obligation to give truthful evidence.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 July 2018
Procedural Posture: Criminal Proceeding / Determination of Witness Competence to Give Evidence at Trial
Outcome: WB is competent to give evidence within the meaning of s 13(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics: ['competence to Give Evidence' 'sworn Evidence' 'child Witness' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 13']

['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['competence to Give Evidence' 'sworn Evidence' 'child Witness' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 13']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Determination of Witness Competence to Give Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether WB, an 11-year-old witness who was nine when his recorded interviews were undertaken, was competent to give evidence within the meaning of s 13 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether WB understood that, in giving evidence, he was under an obligation to give truthful evidence for the purposes of s 13(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

WB is competent to give evidence within the meaning of s 13(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

['WB is competent to give evidence within the meaning of s 13 (3) Evidence Act 1995']