Where a complainant in a historical sexual offence case was young at the time of alleged offending, there has been significant delay (25-30 years), the complainant has suffered intervening psychotic illness, and there is evidence of reconstructive thought processes, the combination of these factors will ordinarily require an unreliability direction under s 32 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), even where the factors have been thoroughly ventilated in cross-examination. The default position under s 32 is that the direction should be given, and if there is any doubt, prudence requires that it be given. The concept of confabulation — that honest recollections may be unreliable — may not be fully appreciated by a lay jury without judicial direction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.