Abstract

Section 58 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act requires courts to admit previous consistent statements relating to sexual offences. However, it does not explain the purpose for which those statements should be admitted. Section 59 prohibits courts from drawing an inference from the victim’s delay in reporting a sexual offence. Section 60 abolishes the cautionary rule in cases of sexual offences. Academics and courts have disagreed on the probative value of previous consistent statements. Relying on the drafting history of section 58, the author argues that a previous consistent statement can be admitted to corroborate the complainant’s evidence. The author also argues that there are circumstances in which a previous consistent statement is inadmissible; there are instances in which a court can draw a negative inference from the delay in reporting the sexual offence; and that although the cautionary rule was abolished with regard to sexual offences, courts are still required to treat with caution the evidence of victims of sexual offences who are children or single witnesses.