consistent statement corroborates in-court testimony: Paciocco,
at p. 199.
 The summary conviction appeal judge concluded that the
trial judge had used the prior consistent statement in this
impermissible way, stating, at para. 15:
The trial judge used the prior consistent statement for the truth of its con-
tents. This is highlighted where he states that it showed “the consistency of
her complaint” and “it assisted the court in determining the overall credibil-
ity in a positive way.” The trial judge appears to have relied on the prior
consistent statement as a foundational pillar for his decision. The use of the
prior consistent statement in this way illustrates the reasons why a prior
consistent statement is presumptively inadmissible. Just because a witness
says the same thing twice does not mean that she is more likely to be telling
the truth. The trial judge made an error in the treatment of an important
piece of evidence which appears to have informed his conclusion.
 In my view, taking the reasons as a whole, the trial judge
used the prior consistent statement for the permissible purpose
of evaluating the context in which the initial complaint arose, in
particular the fact and timing of the complaint, and the sponta-
neous nature in which it came out, in order to assist him in
assessing the truthfulness of the complainant’s in-court testi-
mony. While some of the trial judge’s language was not ideal, his
phraseology must be put in context. In referring to the “con-
sistency of her complaint”, the trial judge stated:
[The statement’s] spontaneity and the context in which it was made, are
capable of, and do support her credibility and the consistency of her com-
plaint. In short, the court finds her evidence credible.
In the court’s view, the spontaneity of that statement is compelling, and also
assists the court in determining the overall credibility of [the complainant],
and impacts upon her credibility in a positive way.
 The trial judge properly placed the prior consistent statement on the scale in assessing the credibility of the complainant’s
in-court testimony by considering the circumstances in which she
made her initial complaint to Constable Flint. To this extent, the
prior consistent statement does add to the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony and had probative value beyond
mere repetition. It was evidence of the sequence and timing of
events and the emotional state of the complainant at the time of
the utterance, and assisted the trial judge in evaluating the credibility of the complainant’s in-court testimony. The trial judge’s use
of the prior consistent statement was proper.
E. Reconsideration of Mackenzie
 In Mackenzie, the court concluded that the trial judge
erred in the way he used the complainant’s prior consistent