QLDQCA
R v Soma [2001] QCA 263
[2001] QCA 263
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-07-13|Before: McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Court of Appeal (Qld)
Decision date
2001-07-13
Before
McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
- CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
- - PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE - prosecution can only lead fresh
- evidence in rebuttal if
- permitted by the court - application of principle that the prosecution must
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE- PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE - prosecution can only lead freshevidence in rebuttal ifpermitted by the court - application of principle that the prosecution mustpresent its case completely beforethe accused is called upon - where thereexisted no exceptional circumstances to allow the leading of thisevidenceCRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – s. 18 EVIDENCE ACT 1977– where evidence relied upon as proof of previous inconsistent statement– whether requirements of that section are satisfiedCRIMINAL LAW– PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUALOFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - PROOF OFEVIDENCE - where fresh complaintin issue - whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to theadverse impact upon thecomplainant’s credibility where an explanation forlack of fresh complaint was rejected – whether the failure to givesuch adirection would warrant the setting aside of the verdictLawrence