What significant change was made by R v B (KG) regarding prior inconsistent statements?

The significant change made by R v B (KG) regarding prior inconsistent statements is that they can be admitted if they meet new balancing criteria. This decision clarified the conditions under which such statements may be considered in court, recognizing the importance of identifying circumstances where the reliability and context of prior statements can be crucial to the case.

In this context, the ruling emphasizes the court's responsibility to assess the probative value of prior inconsistent statements against their potential prejudicial impact. The balancing act considers factors such as the witness's credibility, the nature of the inconsistency, and its relevance to the issues at hand. This allows for a more nuanced approach to evidence, ensuring that relevant information can be included in a trial even if it contradicts previous statements made by the witness.

The other options suggest various restrictions or requirements that do not align with the evolution of legal standards following the R v B (KG) decision. For example, stating that prior inconsistent statements are no longer admissible or require witness recantation fails to capture the more flexible and criteria-based approach established by the ruling. Similarly, the idea that all statements must be verified by an expert does not reflect the court's recognition that such verification is not a blanket requirement for admitting evidence.