Supreme Court
Decision Information
Summary: Defence wanted professor of psychology, whose expertise lies in the study of human memory, to give opinion evidence in sexual assault case in which for twenty years the complainant had no memory of the assault and then remembered it along with another, unrelated incident of sexual assault. Defence sought to admit information from expert on memory confusion from transposed events; repressed memory syndrome; phenomenon of false memory; and the general treatment of the variables and parameters which impact of the reliability or unreliability of a person's memory. Court determined that this expert opinion evidence was not necessary as confusion was within the common stock of knowledge of adult jurors; no one had suggested there were repressed memories; the complainant's memories today are the same as when she first remembered them and are therefore not considered "false memories"; and wide-ranging discussion on memory was inappropriate.
Decision: Expert opinion evidence ruled inadmissible
Subjects: Criminal law - Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Evidence
Criminal law - Evidence - Opinion evidence - Expert witnesses