, FOR2609 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 (636945) - DUE 16 September
2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations.
Question 1 In your own words provide your understanding of
the term ���previous consistent statement”. (10) Question
2 Opinion evidence can be crucial in solving the case in court.
Discuss opinion evidence and the exceptions to the general rule
of admissibility. (5
Question 1: Understanding the Term "Previous Consistent
Statement" (10 marks)
A previous consistent statement refers to a statement made by
a witness before the trial that aligns with their testimony given
during the trial. This is used to reinforce the credibility of the
witness by demonstrating that their current testimony is
consistent with what they previously said about the events in
question. The idea is that a witness who repeats the same
account multiple times, especially before the trial, is less likely
to be fabricating their story.
However, these statements are generally not admissible as
evidence unless certain exceptions apply, such as when the
witness's credibility is attacked, implying that they fabricated
their testimony after the fact. In such cases, a previous
consistent statement can help rebut allegations of recent
fabrication or bias.
Semester 2 2024 (636945) - DUE 16 September
2024 ; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions
and explanations.
Question 1 In your own words provide your understanding of
the term ���previous consistent statement”. (10) Question
2 Opinion evidence can be crucial in solving the case in court.
Discuss opinion evidence and the exceptions to the general rule
of admissibility. (5
Question 1: Understanding the Term "Previous Consistent
Statement" (10 marks)
A previous consistent statement refers to a statement made by
a witness before the trial that aligns with their testimony given
during the trial. This is used to reinforce the credibility of the
witness by demonstrating that their current testimony is
consistent with what they previously said about the events in
question. The idea is that a witness who repeats the same
account multiple times, especially before the trial, is less likely
to be fabricating their story.
However, these statements are generally not admissible as
evidence unless certain exceptions apply, such as when the
witness's credibility is attacked, implying that they fabricated
their testimony after the fact. In such cases, a previous
consistent statement can help rebut allegations of recent
fabrication or bias.
