R v DX (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 165

R v DX (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 165

The witness's 2011 police statement about events in the mid 1990s could not be used to refresh memory because it was not made or verified when the events were fresh in the witness's memory; "such a time" in s 32(2)(b)(ii) refers to the time of freshness of memory, and a contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of the section.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Disputed Facts Hearing in Sentence Proceedings; Application for Leave for a Witness to Refresh Her Memory Under S 32 of the Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Application rejected
Legal Topics
['disputed Facts Hearing' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'refreshing Memory' 'evidence Act 1995 S 32' 'meaning of "such a Time"']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['disputed Facts Hearing' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'refreshing Memory' 'evidence Act 1995 S 32' 'meaning of "such a Time"']

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 / Disputed Facts Hearing in Sentence Proceedings; Application for Leave for a Witness to Refresh Her Memory Under S 32 of the Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for a witness to refresh her memory from a police statement made on 17 May 2011 about events in the mid 1990s.' 'Whether the expression "such a time" in s 32(2)(b)(ii) of the Evidence Act 1995 refers to the time when the statement was made or to the time when the events recorded were fresh in the witness\'s memory.']

Ratio Decidendi

The witness's 2011 police statement about events in the mid 1990s could not be used to refresh memory because it was not made or verified when the events were fresh in the witness's memory; "such a time" in s 32(2)(b)(ii) refers to the time of freshness of memory, and a contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of the section.

Court Disposition

Application rejected

Orders

  • ['I reject the application']