Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd

The case of Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd involved a dispute where the respondent, Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, sought leave to allow a witness to refresh their memory from a statement provided to the police. This was in the context of criminal proceedings where the Crown had led evidence to rebut anticipated good character evidence from the witness. The applicant in the case, Doueihi, contested the respondent's application on the grounds that the statement was not made while the events were fresh in the witness's memory. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The legal issue before the court was whether the statement made by the witness to the police could be used to refresh the witness's memory during the trial. This involved determining whether the statement was made when the events were still fresh in the witness's memory. The court had to consider the gap between the events and the making of the statement, which was one year. The relevant legal principles centred on the requirement that statements used to refresh memory must have been made when the events were fresh in the witness's memory, and the court had to assess whether this criterion was satisfied.

The court concluded that the statement was not made when the events were fresh in the witness's memory due to the significant gap of one year between the events and the making of the statement. The court found that this gap rendered the statement inadmissible for the purpose of refreshing the witness's memory. The court's decision hinged on the strict interpretation of the phrase "fresh in the memory," which was deemed not to be satisfied in this case. Consequently, the application for leave to refresh the witness's memory from the statement was refused.

The final order of the court was that the application by Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd to allow the witness to refresh their memory from the police statement was dismissed. The witness was not permitted to use the statement for the purpose of refreshing their memory during the trial.