Chapter 4- Previous Consistent Statements Flashcards
Where do the rules applicable to previous consistent statements originate from?
Ae primarily Common Law rules. S252 of CP Act has the effect that the rule, as it was applied on 30 May 1961 in English law, forms part of our law. Certain statutory additions and amendments have created exceptions to the Common Law rule, and cognizance must be take of both Statutory and Common Law in order to understand the rule properly.
What is the difference between previous consistent statements and hearsay?
Previous consistent statements is based on at least 2 or more previous statements whereas hearsay is based on a single previous statement.
What constitutes a previous consistent statement?
The gist of the rule is that, a previous consistent statement can best be described as a statement by a witness which was made (orally or in writing) at a stage prior to the time when it was repeated in court.
It need not be the same statement, as long as the content is essentially the same.
What are the most common situations of a previous consistent statement in practice? -5 points
1) A makes statement to B, who records in writing. In court prior state to by A adduced as supplement to oral evidence.
2) A relates a version to B outside court. At trial both witnesses refer to this statement.
3) Witness A, during evidence at trial, states that he gave same version to people who aren’t called as witnesses.
4) An accused gives detailed statement at his trial (during explanation of plea, for instance) and later repeats it under oath.
5) A statement is procured by way of hypnosis or truth serum and repeated by another witness at trial.
What stages during a trial are previous consistent statements usually raised?
1) During examination in chief, prosecutor refers a witness to a previous statement on the same subject matter.
2) During examination in chief one witness is asked about what another witness has told him.
3) During examination in chief, prosecutor refers a witness to what is contained in his statement in the docket.
4) During cross-examination of a state witness by the defence, the witness is asked whether he also related his version in court to somebody else.
5) During reexamination by the prosecutor, the witness is referred to his earlier statement as a previous consistent statement.
6) The accused, whilst giving evidence, repeats an earlier statement which he made when he pleaded to the charges.
What place does previous consistent statements have in our law?
They are primarily evidential material which is defendant for its admissibility in its relevance to other admissible evidence. One first has to determine whether the evidence is admissible before one can accord it any evidential value or cogency.
It fits perfectly with other rules, such as similar fact evidence, collateral facts, character evidence, opinion evidence, and real evidence, which depend on their relevance for admissibility.
What do all principles of evidence that depend on their relevance for admissibility have in common?
1) All question of admissibility;
2) All consist of a rule with certain exceptions;
3) their reason for inadmissibility is because of irrelevancy.
This kind of evidence is encountered in both civil and criminal cases, although some of the exceptions apply only in criminal law. (Eg complaints by victims of sexual offences)
What was the position of previous consistent statements in Common Law?
In common law is inadmissible. Rule also referred to as “rule against narrative” or “rule against self-serving statements”. It isn’t embodied in statutory law and the Common Law dispensation therefore applies unfettered.
A witness may not refer to his earlier consistent statement. The rule also embraces evidence of witnesses who may refer to statements by former or future witnesses and even documents which may be classed as previous consistent statements.
What reasons are given for the rule regarding previous consistent statements?
- Potential danger of easy fabrication;
- Insufficient evidential value of such evidence;
- Unreliability (in Rose 1937 AD was said that a lie is as easily repeated as the truth;
- Superfluousness (doesn’t assist I the quest for a solution as repetition doesn’t amount to independent factual confirmation);
- Time consuming consequences (unnecessary procrastination and deviation should be curbed as collateral issues);
- The rule against self corroboration (can’t corroborate yourself)
The true reason for inadmissibility lies in its relevance, the aforesaid factors should affect the weight of the evidence and not it’s admissibility.
When will a previous consistent statement be admissible?
Under influence of English Law the rule acquired certain crystallized exceptions and has become common to enquire whether evidence falls within such an exception, rather than to ask whether it is relevant. Even certain SA authors believe that rule should only be accepted if falls within exception (see LAWSA 355 para 523, pg 53 SG)
What are the Common Law exceptions to the rule relating to previous consistent statements?
!READ PAGE 53-65!!!!!
1) To rebut an allegation of previous allegation;
2) Previous identification/ recognition;
(2. 1) Of the accused
- Identification parades
- Identikits and conduct
- Identification from photos
- Voice parades
(2. 2) Identification of someone or something other than accused
3) Complaints by victims of sexual offences
4) Memory refreshing
5) Statements procured by scientific methods
6) Previous statements by an accused
(6. 1) Admissions
(6. 2) Exculpatory statements
(6. 3) partly exculpatory and partly incriminating statements
What are the Common Law pre-requisites to the exception of previous consistent statements/ complaints by victims of sexual offences? -4 points
(a) Complainant must have been a victim;
(b) Complaint must have been made voluntarily
(c) Complaint must’ve been made at first reasonable opportunity to first reasonable person;
(d) Victim must testify about the statement.
What do previous consistent statements, similar fact evidence, character evidence, collateral facts, opinion evidence and real evidence have in common?
All of these principles have the following in common:
1) They are all questions of admissibility;
2) They all consist of a rule with certain exceptions;
3) their reason for in admissibility is because of irrelevancy.
