Regina v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181

Regina v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181

The trial judge erred by confining consideration of 'fresh in the memory' primarily to temporal factors and by relying on inexactness regarding dates; the nature of the events and psychological research support admissibility. Both complaints in 2007 and 2009 were sufficiently fresh in the complainant's memory to meet the requirements of s 66(2) and (2A) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Complaint Evidence' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'child Sexual Assault' 'interpretation of Evidence Act S 66']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Complaint Evidence' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'child Sexual Assault' 'interpretation of Evidence Act S 66']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether complaint evidence was admissible under s 66(2) and (2A) of the Evidence Act 1995' "Proper construction of 'fresh in the memory' in s 66(2) and (2A)" "Whether trial judge erred by focusing on 'inexactness' and temporal gaps"]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by confining consideration of 'fresh in the memory' primarily to temporal factors and by relying on inexactness regarding dates; the nature of the events and psychological research support admissibility. Both complaints in 2007 and 2009 were sufficiently fresh in the complainant's memory to meet the requirements of s 66(2) and (2A) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the decision of Woods ADCJ made on 3 May 2010.' 'Each of the complaints made by the complainant in 2007 and 2009 is admissible as evidence of the facts contained in the respective representations.' 'Remit the matter to the District Court for trial.']