This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
provides that if evidence of a prior representation made by the defendant in a criminal trial has been admitted, and the defendant has not or will not be called to give evidence, the same restrictions on adducing evidence relevant to the credibility of the defendant should apply as under clause 104. This is to overcome the position in relation to section 108A of the UEAs, which could permit a situation where the prosecution could tender a prior representation of the defendant and then lead credibility evidence against the defendant. Subclause (2) provides that the prosecution must ordinarily seek the court's leave where it wishes to tender evidence relevant only to a defendant's credibility. When deciding whether to grant leave, the court is to take into account matters in subclause (4). Subclause (3) provides that leave is not required, however, where cross-examination by the prosecutor relates to whether the defendant was biased or had a motive to be untruthful, whether the defendant is or was unable to be aware of or to recall matters to which his or her previous representation relates or whether the defendant has made a previous inconsistent statement. Under subclause (4), where leave is required, it must not be given to the prosecution unless the defendant has adduced evidence that tends to prove that a prosecution witness has a tendency to be untruthful and the evidence is relevant solely or mainly to the witness's credibility. Subclause (5) makes it clear that subclause (4) does not include a reference to evidence of conduct in relation to the proceedings. Under subclause (4) there may be a situation where the defence adduces this evidence after the Crown has closed its case. The issues that arise in this situation are discussed under clause 108A. Under subclause (6) a second (or other) defendant cannot be given leave for cross-examination unless the evidence of the first defendant is adverse to the second (or other) defendant and that evidence has been admitted. This clause is in accordance with the 2005 LRCs' Report (recommendation 12-6). Division 4—Persons with specialised knowledge