Evidence Act 2006 Westlaw Lexis Nexis
See Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, Hart v R [2010] NZSC 91, R v B (SC88/ 10) [2010] NZSC 160.
But note res gestae amendment to s 35 which now reads:
35 Previous consistent statements rule
(1) A previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witness’s evidence is not admissible unless subsection (2) applies to the statement.
(2) A previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witness’s evidence is admissible if the statement—
(a) 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
(b) forms an integral part of the events before the court; or
(c) consists of the mere fact that a complaint has been made in a criminal case.