Evidence Act 2006

Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality - Previous consistent statements made by witness

35: Previous consistent statements rule

You could also call this:

"Using earlier statements to back up what you say in court"

If you are a witness in a court case, you might have made a statement before that is the same as what you say in court. Normally, the court does not accept this previous statement as evidence unless certain conditions are met. You can use your previous statement if someone questions whether you are telling the truth or not, based on something you said before that was different, or if someone says you made something up. Your previous statement can also be used if it is closely connected to what happened, or if it is just about the fact that you made a complaint in a criminal case, you can find more information about this in the Evidence Amendment Act 2016.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on 29 June 2025

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM393619.

Topics:

Crime and justice > Courts and legal help

34: Admissions in civil proceedings, or

"What people say or write can be used as evidence in a civil court case"

36: Application of subpart to evidence of veracity and propensity, or

"When the law doesn't apply to evidence about someone's honesty in court cases."

Part 2Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality
Previous consistent statements made by witness

35Previous consistent statements rule

A previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witness’s evidence is not admissible unless subsection (2) applies to the statement.
A previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witness’s evidence is admissible if the statement—
responds to a challenge that will be or has been made to the witness’s veracity or accuracy, based on a previous inconsistent statement of the witness or on a claim of invention on the part of the witness; or
forms an integral part of the events before the court; or
consists of the mere fact that a complaint has been made in a criminal case.

Repealed

Notes

Section 35(1): amended, on 8 January 2017, by section 11(1) of the Evidence Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 44).
Section 35(2): replaced, on 8 January 2017, by section 11(2) of the Evidence Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 44).
Section 35(3): repealed, on 8 January 2017, by section 11(2) of the Evidence Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 44).