Doctrine Of Recent Complaint In Sexual Cases

Question 1

What to be aware of in Examination in chief

Answer 1

Need to be aware of leading questions and rule against Narrative

Question 2

Rule against narrative

Answer 2

Prevents witness being asked—in examination in chief— about former oral / written statements—- made by him

Question 3

Hearsay rule

Answer 3

Prohibits — out of court statements —adduced to prove the truth of their content —in situations where the maker—not available to testify (hearsay statement)

Question 4

R v Roberts

Answer 4

Humphrey’s j — the fact that a witness has made previous consistent statements— does not boost their credibility

Question 5

Exception to hearsay rule and rule against narrative —

Answer 5

Res gestae

Question 6

Another exception :

Doctrine of recent complaint in sexual cases

Answer 6

—applicable — only to sexual offences

—allowing —previous statements by victim —- provided they satisfy certain conditions

Question 7

Conditions for doctrine of recent complaint

Answer 7

1) voluntary

2) made @ first reasonable opportunity

Question 8

1) Voluntary

Answer 8

— complaint made voluntarily— even if it is an answer to a question— so long as question is not a leading question

Question 9

2) first reasonable opportunity

Answer 9

This issues is a matter of degree

Dpp v McDonagh
-complainant—taxi —to garda station—immediately after rape
—told taxi driver— made complaint when she got to Garda station
—defence argued—- once she made complaint to taxi driver —-couldn’t rely on complaint made to Garda
—

—rejected view— complaint to Garda should be regarded as having been made @first reasonable opportunity

Question 10

Dpp v Kiernan

Answer 10

—alleged rape— on Friday
—victims told accused’s gf
—intended to tell bef (his brother is a social worker)
—didn’t tell bf @1st meeting—on Saturday
—next day—told him
Held — complaint TOO LATE
—- If she had told bf on Saturday —- would’ve been — “reasonable time”

Question 11

Exception —- cases of systematic abuse— Courts are more lenient

Answer 11

CB v DPP 1995

—accused —charged in 1993— indecent assault and rape —of daughters
—between 1962-1974 (12 years)
—1st complaint— made by daughters (over 20/30 hrs later after mother died)
Reason for delay— anxious for mother’s peace of mind
—held — complaint made— @first reasonable opportunity

Question 12

Purpose of doctrine

Answer 12

—-To show consistency and enhance credibility of complainant
—- meaning —if terms of complaint—not consistent with complainant’s testimony —-there is no point adducing it

—complainant —has to testify —im order for complaint to be admitted

Question 13

People (dpp) v Gavin 2000

Answer 13

—accused—convicted of sexual assault
—-complaint —made by victim —-to gardai —had been admitted in evidence
—victim—-awoken to find —-accused in his bed
—-accused’s hand —on his groin
—however—this complaint —-not consistent with alleged testimony
—on appeal—mcguiness j— complaint should NOT have been admitted

—purpose of admitting recent complaint —-to demonstrate consistency