R v Jenkin (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 751

R v Jenkin (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 751

Leave under s 108 was refused because the cross-examination of RS, although directed to reliability and credibility, did not suggest directly, indirectly, by implication or inference that she fabricated or reconstructed her evidence or gave evidence as a result of suggestion, so the terms of s 108 were not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Crown Application for Leave Under S 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) During Trial
Outcome
Leave under s 108 refused.
Legal Topics
['credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'leave Under S 108' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'fabrication, Reconstruction or Suggestion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'leave Under S 108' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'fabrication, Reconstruction or Suggestion']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Evidence Ruling / Crown Application for Leave Under S 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be given leave under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to adduce evidence from Chae Allen of a conversation in which RS made statements consistent with parts of her evidence.' 'Whether cross-examination of RS suggested, expressly or by implication, that she fabricated or reconstructed her evidence or gave evidence as a result of suggestion.' 'Whether the credibility rule was waived in relation to the proposed evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under s 108 was refused because the cross-examination of RS, although directed to reliability and credibility, did not suggest directly, indirectly, by implication or inference that she fabricated or reconstructed her evidence or gave evidence as a result of suggestion, so the terms of s 108 were not engaged.

Court Disposition

Leave under s 108 refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to adduce evidence of the conversation between RS and Mr Allen is refused.']