9 Dec 2016
CARSELDINE v R [2016] NZCA 573
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 573
- Court
- Court of Appeal
No reversible error was shown: the trial Judge was not required to give a special direction on prior consistent statements given their obvious functions here (part of the narrative and rebuttal of veracity attack), and although references to sex stories should have been excised as irrelevant, their presence was not prejudicial in context; strong corroborative evidence (immediate complaint and DNA results) meant no miscarriage of justice occurred.