R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 16) [2015] NSWSC 1581

R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 16) [2015] NSWSC 1581

Evidence from Dr Marks about her practice in using distracting techniques is admissible as common-sense evidence within her professional experience, but opinion as to whether a specific scenario described by C1 constitutes a 'dissociative technique' is inadmissible because Dr Marks is not qualified to provide psychological or psychiatric opinion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application During Trial (voir Dire Ruling)
Outcome
Evidence of Dr Marks' practice allowed; opinion evidence concerning C1's account disallowed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'paediatric Evidence' 'use of Distracting/dissociative Techniques']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'paediatric Evidence' 'use of Distracting/dissociative Techniques']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application During Trial (voir Dire Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from paediatrician about use of distracting or dissociative techniques with children is admissible' 'Whether paediatrician may give opinion about psychological nature of techniques described by complainant']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence from Dr Marks about her practice in using distracting techniques is admissible as common-sense evidence within her professional experience, but opinion as to whether a specific scenario described by C1 constitutes a 'dissociative technique' is inadmissible because Dr Marks is not qualified to provide psychological or psychiatric opinion.

Court Disposition

Evidence of Dr Marks' practice allowed; opinion evidence concerning C1's account disallowed.

Orders

  • ['Crown permitted to adduce evidence from Dr Marks regarding use of distracting techniques when examining children.' "Crown not permitted to adduce opinion evidence from Dr Marks regarding whether C1's described experience constituted a dissociative technique."]