QLD Criminal Law - Prosecutor Following Witness Statement Verbatim?

[John Thorton]

Under criminal law, must a prosecutor follow a witness statement verbatim? For example, they cannot ask for facts which were not raised in the witness statement, right?

i.e. Witness in signed statement says the last text message was received on the 1st of January when, in fact, there were exculpatory text messages past this date. Clearly this looks bad for the prosecution, would they be able to insinuate there were more after this date to try and raise a reason for deliberately leaving the existence of said texts out of the statement?

 

[Rod]

I'm assuming the witness is for the prosecution and the prosecution is questioning their own witness. Prosecution can ask nearly whatever they want as long as the the question is relevant to a disputed fact.

I'd expect the defence to cross-examine and ge the required information from the witness, and also request said texts before the trial, or if they are sent to the defendant, produce them in court.

 

[John Thorton]

Would a difference between the statement and the testimony, particularly because there was no reason to exclude said texts in the statement, give rise to reasonable doubt to a judicial officer?

 

[Rod]

Can't answer that. Depends on the content of the texts and context.

Might introduce some doubt, but can't say if it crosses the threshold to reasonable doubt.

 

[John Thorton]

Could you expand on why, especially because there was no legitimate reason to exclude the texts in the witness statement and any evidence in chief contrary to this will just seem self-serving on the prosecution's part and them salvaging their case, as to why this wouldn't be reasonable doubt?

It's doubt because it's conflicting statements, and I would have thought it was reasonable because of the deliberate exclusion.

 

[Rod]

Could you expand on why,

1. Unfortunately I can't, not because I do not want to, but because there is insufficient detail in the post to be able to comment. And it isn't appropriate to put the detail in a post.
2. It also depends on the attitude and weighting given to the conflicting evidence by the Magistrate/Judge hearing the case. Every Magistrate/Judge should assign similar weightings in theory, but in practice weighting will vary. How much, I have no idea.

FYI, the prosecution is not supposed to 'hide evidence'. They should be presenting all relevant evidence, at least that's the rule in Vic and NSW. Not sure about QLD.