R v MK [2020] NSWDC 658
The Queensland allegations were not admissible as tendency evidence as they lacked significant probative value due to the gap in time, difference in context, and the high level of generality of the alleged tendency; Dr Shackel's report was inadmissible as she lacked the required expertise in child psychology or psychiatry, despite the relevance of the literature reviewed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 October 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Application to admit tendency and expert evidence refused
- Legal Topics
- ['tendency Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'sexual Offences' 'admissibility of Evidence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Queensland allegations are admissible as tendency evidence in proof of New South Wales offences' "Whether Dr Shackel's expert report is admissible as expert evidence regarding child sexual abuse complainant behaviour"]
Ratio Decidendi
The Queensland allegations were not admissible as tendency evidence as they lacked significant probative value due to the gap in time, difference in context, and the high level of generality of the alleged tendency; Dr Shackel's report was inadmissible as she lacked the required expertise in child psychology or psychiatry, despite the relevance of the literature reviewed.
Court Disposition
Application to admit tendency and expert evidence refused
Orders
- ['Evidence of the Queensland allegations is not admitted as tendency evidence.' 'Report of Dr Shackel is not admitted as expert evidence.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment