In R v B (KG), under what condition can a jury make substantive use of a prior inconsistent statement?

A jury can make substantive use of a prior inconsistent statement if all parties can cross-examine the witness. This principle is grounded in the right to a fair trial, where the credibility of witnesses is central to the determination of facts. When a witness has made a prior inconsistent statement, allowing for cross-examination ensures that both the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to question the witness about the discrepancies between their testimony and the prior statement. This process helps the jury to assess the reliability and truthfulness of the witness.

In this context, options that suggest informal settings, witness agreement, or religious bases do not inherently provide the necessary legal framework for the jury to substantively utilize prior inconsistent statements. The essence of meaningful engagement through cross-examination is vital for substantiating the integrity of the statement in question. Hence, the requirement of cross-examination underpins the fairness and thoroughness of the legal proceedings, enabling jurors to make informed judgments regarding the evidence presented to them.