R v Soma

The case of *R v Soma* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following the respondent's conviction for rape. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by the respondent during a police interview, which the prosecution sought to introduce after the respondent had given evidence at his trial.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the prosecution could adduce evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by an accused person during cross-examination, and whether a sound recording of the respondent's interview was wrongly admitted into evidence. The Court also considered whether the trial judge was required to rule on the admissibility of evidence despite a failure by the defence to object to cross-examination, and whether the tender of the prior inconsistent statement constituted an impermissible attempt by the prosecution to split its case.

The High Court reasoned that the provisions of the *Evidence Act 1977* (Qld) did not preclude the prosecution from adducing evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by an accused person who gives evidence. Specifically, section 18 of the Act, which governs the proof of prior inconsistent statements, applies to all witnesses, including accused persons. The Court held that if the requirements of section 18 are met, and the statement is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding, the prosecution is entitled to tender it in evidence as proof of its contents. The Court also noted that section 130 of the Act provides a general power to exclude evidence if its admission would be unfair to the accused.

The appeal was dismissed.