R v Le (2002) 54 NSWLR 474

Facts: Le (Defendant; D) tries to flush heroin down the toilet during a police search. D’s girlfriend told police they were D’s drugs; later, she recanted and claimed they were hers (i.e. gave evidence inconsistent with evidence given previously to police). Prosecution (Pr) sought leave to cross-examine her under s 38 Evidence Act but no reference was made to the matters in s 38(6) nor did the judge explicitly consider the matters set out in s 192. In cross-examination (CE), Pr asked questions not only about the inconsistent statements, but also the factual circumstances of her first statement tending to prove its veracity (e.g. immediacy, parent present) and her motive for changing her story (D bought her a car). 

Want to read more?

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

Subscribe Now