Previous consistent stat-
UNIT 3
CREATED BY MS MAHLANGU
Learning outcomes
Define Previous Consistent Statements
Explain the general rule surrounding the admissibility/ inadmissibility of
previous consistent statements.
Explain the rational for the court exclusion of previous consistent
statements.
Discuss the exceptions to the exclusion of previous consistent
statements.
Previous Consistent Statements
It is a statement that was made outside court and not under oath.
However, it indicates the line of defense the defendant or accused
person would have adopted.
A prior consistent statement may be offered as evidence to rebut a
charge that a witness's testimony is fabricated, provided that the
witness is available to be cross-examined.
The general rule is that previous consistent statements are inadmissible
in a court of law.
However, proof of previous inconsistent statements is as a rule
admissible because inconsistent statements are relevant to credibility.
Rational for the exclusion of Previous
Consistent Statements
A previous consistent statement usually has insufficient probative value
because a lie can be repeated as often as the truth.
There is also the risk of easy fabrication of evidence.
Previous consistent statement would be superfluous as it may be accepted that
in the ordinary course of events a witness’s evidence would be consistent with
what he on the other occasions has said about the same topic or incident.
Proof of previous consistent statements in each and every case would be
extremely time –consuming and may pave the way for numerous collateral
equiries.
Once the previous consistent statement is proved, it would merely duplicate
the evidence already given by the witness.
Exceptions to the prohibition against
the admission of previous consistent
statement
To Rebut the allegations of recent fabrication.
Complainants in sexual offences
Prior identification in an identification parade
Cases where the evidence constitutes res gestae
Refresh memory.
To rebut the allegations of recent
fabrication
If it is suggested to a witness that he has fabricated his evidence within some ascertainable
period of time, the witness must rebut such allegations by showing prior to the time as
alleged, he has made a written or oral statement consistent with his evidence in court.
Menday v Protea Assurance- case that dealt with the definition of the term “recent” .
This exception only applies where the allegation of recent fabrication is made by
implication.
Previous consistent statement is admissible not only where a direct or implied accusation of
a recent deliberate false fabrication is made but also where it is alleged that the witness
recently imagined or reconstructed the event even though not with conscious dishonesty.
Relevance is a determining factor as to whether or not admit previous consistent
statement.
Case : Flanagan v Faly
Complaints in sexual offences
Sexual offences cases include cases of rape, indecent assault and so
on.
In terms of the doctrine of hue and cry, victims of sexual assault were
traditionally expected to tell somebody about it because if they keep
quite about it adverse inferences would be drawn.
In order to guard against malicious report and an honest error that
could be made there are two pre-requisites that have been introduced:
The complaint must have been at the first reasonable opportunity that
presented itself with no undue delay.
The report must not be elicited by leading questions
The first pre-requisite
It is should be noted that there is no hard and fast rule on the time
frame.
Each case must be decided on its merits.
The satisfaction of this requirement is fact based.
Applicable case : R v S 1955 (4) SA 40.
N.B the case evident the fact that facts of the case determines what is
considered as first reasonable opportunity for the victim.
The report must not be elicited by
leading questions
Leading questions can be defined as questions that suggests a desired
answer.
The wording of the question implies a particular response .
The mere fact that a statement is an answer to a question is not
sufficient to make the previous consistent statement inadmissible.
Much would depend on the manner of questioning.
R v Osbourne
Where threat is of a leading nature and procure the making of the
complaint- its voluntary nature is destroyed and evidence becomes
inadmissible – S v T
Prior identification in an
identification parade
Previous consistent statements have been used in cases relating to
prior identification in an identification is admissible.
Leading cases on the matter :
R v Christie –
R v Rassol
Where the statement constitute Res
Gestae
Literal meaning of res gestae is the events, circumstances, remarks,
etc. which relate to a particular case, especially as constituting
admissible evidence in a court of law.
So if one can prove that the previous consistent statement is res
gestae, such evidence will be admitted by the court.
Leading case S v Moolman where the court held that the previous
consistent statement cannot collaborate the witness.
Refresh memory
A witness’s earlier statement may in certain circumstances be used to
refresh his memory whilst he is in the witness box.
The evidential value of a statement used to refresh memory depends
on one of two possible situations.
In the case of present recollection revived, the earlier statement has no
independent probative value.
However, in the case of past recollection recorded the content of the
statement are received as below.
In such , there is no independent oral testimony and the issue
concerning the admissibility of previous consistent statement does not
arise.
The end…………….