Court of Appeal
Decision Information
Summary: Complainant did not remember sexual assault until two years later even though saw accused several times before then. Argument with husband jogged memory, and remembered assault together with another sexual assault incident involving another perpetrator. Accused wants testimony of properly qualified memory expert for information on possibility of adult blocking memory and transposition of details between separate events. Trial Judge ruled inadmissible because was not necessary - the possibility of confusion was within the knowledge of adult jurors. Court of Appeal, however, disagreed with lower court's application of expert opinion criteria from Mohan case. Found expert evidence was relevant to credibility issue, necessary as the two events being recalled at same time was sufficiently unusual so as to put it beyond the common knowledge of jury and judge could have narrowed scope of information to avoid tainting ultimate decision. Crown did not show verdict would have been same with the expert evidence. Dissent - Would dismiss appeal - judge properly applied law and made his assessment. Dissent not convinced was miscarriage of justice in light of accused's admissions.
Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction quased. New trial ordered
Appeal: Trial judge erred in his application of admissibility of expert evidence case law
Subjects: Criminal law - Evidence - Opinion evidence - Expert witnesses