Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1

Facts: Defendant (D) (Palmer) was convicted of child sexual abuse against a 14 year old girl. Due to a lack of corroborating evidence, credibility was crucial. In cross-examination (CE), D counsel put it to complainant (C) that the allegations were false as payback for the D not giving her enough attention as she had a ‘crush’ on him (negative credibility evidence) which she denied. In CE, the prosecution (PR) asked D to suggest a motive: “Why would the complainant lie?” (attempt to re-establish C’s credibility by eliciting that D knew of no motive). This questioning was a ground of appeal.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now