Scribd
Upload
18 views2 pages

Law of Evidence Previous Consistent Statements

Uploaded by

jigukat22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views2 pages

Law of Evidence Previous Consistent Statements

Uploaded by

jigukat22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PREVIOUS CONSISTANT STATEMENTS

A previous consistent statement is a written or oral statement made by a witness on some


occasion prior to testifying and which corresponds with or is substantially similar to his or her
testimony in court.

• Previous consistent statements are generally inadmissible, a witness cannot as a result


be asked in examination in chief if they had uttered that statement previously.

• They cannot be proved by calling witnesses.

• It’s excluded because it’s irrelevant.

• Also referred to as rule against self serving statements

Previous inconsistent statements are admissible because they are relevant to credibility.

RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION

• No probative value, a lie can be repeated as often as the truth

• Danger of fabrication (self made evidence)

• Superfluous, statements about the same incident are expected to be similar.

• Would be time consuming

• Even if proved it would duplicate the evidence already given in court

Case law: R v Roberts 1942 28 Cr App R.

Accused charged with murder, testified that the killing was an accident and wanted to call his father as
witness that he had told him the killing was an accident on the night of the deceased’s death. Was not
permitted to call his father as a witness.

Exceptions to the general rule

• To rebut a suggestion of recent fabrication. See Menday v Protea Assurence Co Ltd 1976 1 SA
565(E). The party seeking to use previous consistent statements can only do so if the other party
has alleged that their defense was fabricated recently. It is the defense that should be alleged to
be recent in relation to the trial.

• Complaints in sexual cases.


• Voluntary complaint

The complaint must be made voluntarily, any threats of violence against the victim will
render the complaint inadmissible. See S v T 1963 1 SA 484 (A) were the victim’s mother
threatened to hit her if she did not disclose to her what the accused had done to her.
similarly, leading questions must not be asked

Questions like “why are u crying?”, “what happened to your clothes?” will not render the
complaint inadmissible.

• The victim must testify

It is required that the victim testifies to prove the consistency with her version. See S v R
1965 2 SA 463 (W).

• First reasonable opportunity

The complaint should have been made at the first reasonable opportunity. See R v C 1955 4
SA 40 (N) (Shwikkaard page 105, footnote 43).

The determination of what exactly would amount to first reasonable opportunity depends
on;

• The presence or absence of person to whom a complaint could have been made

• Whether the victim realized the immoral nature of the act.

• Victim of a sexual nature

• Identification

Dock identifications carry less probative value. Prior identifications show that the person
testifying is not identifying the prisoner in the dock for the first time but has identified him on
some previous occasion in circumstances such as to give real weight to his identification.

• Refreshing memory

You might also like