Click here [3] to link to the full judgment.

H was a witness in the trial of the accused for criminal negligence related to a motor vehicle accident. An issue in the case was whether H or the accused was driving the car at the time of the accident. The trial judge admitted a number of prior consistent statements by H, and the accused argued that the trial judge had improperly relied on those statements for the truth of their contents. The Court held that prior consistent statements may only be used to assess credibility, and may not be used for the truth of their contents. The Court found that the trial judge had not used the past consistent statements inappropriately, and dismissed the appeal.