Expert evidence on counter-intuitive behaviour of child sexual abuse complainants must remain general and may not extend to specific opinions about the particular complainant's behaviour or the significance of specific items such as notes or letters, as such opinions are not based on relevant expertise and amount to hypothesis or speculation. However, the inadmissible admission of such evidence will not necessarily occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice where defence counsel made a forensic decision not to object and the trial judge gave appropriate limiting directions. The voluntariness direction in R v AJS and MG v The Queen is confined to cases where the evidence actually raises the issue of whether the act was conscious and voluntary; where the defence is physical impossibility of the act rather than lack of intention, there are no substantial and compelling reasons to give such a direction under s 16 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.