A trial judge is not required to give a warning about the unreliability of hypnotically-recovered memories unless there is an evidentiary basis for the jury to find that the complainant's memory of the offence was, or was likely to have been, improved by hypnosis. It is not sufficient for an accused merely to raise the speculative possibility that a complainant's memory may have been affected by hypnosis. There is no distinct or anterior question as to a complainant's reliability on which the prosecution bears an onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the assessment of reliability is part of the jury's overall task of determining whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.