AJ v R [2022] NSWCCA 136

AJ v R [2022] NSWCCA 136

The convictions were quashed because the trial judge wrongly admitted Dr Shackel's evidence about the behaviour and offending patterns of perpetrators, including evidence that child sexual abuse often occurs in brazen settings and that proximity of other people is not necessarily a deterrent. Although Dr Shackel was qualified to give evidence about behavioural responses of child victims, it was not shown that she had relevant specialised knowledge about perpetrators' offending patterns. The Crown used that inadmissible evidence in address, and there was a real chance that it affected the verdicts. The Crown did not rely on the proviso. Grounds alleging inconsistent verdicts and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions for Sexual Offences / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'retrial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'retrial']

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 Appeal Against Convictions for Sexual Offences / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Rita Shackel had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience so as to give evidence about the behavioural responses of child victims of sexual assault and about the behaviour of child sex offenders acting in a brazen manner.' 'Whether the verdicts of not guilty on counts 10 and 11 were inconsistent with the verdict of guilty on count 9.' 'Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2, 3 and 9 were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were quashed because the trial judge wrongly admitted Dr Shackel's evidence about the behaviour and offending patterns of perpetrators, including evidence that child sexual abuse often occurs in brazen settings and that proximity of other people is not necessarily a deterrent. Although Dr Shackel was qualified to give evidence about behavioural responses of child victims, it was not shown that she had relevant specialised knowledge about perpetrators' offending patterns. The Crown used that inadmissible evidence in address, and there was a real chance that it affected the verdicts. The Crown did not rely on the proviso. Grounds alleging inconsistent verdicts and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant be granted leave to raise grounds 1, 2 and 3 of his Notice of Appeal.' 'The appeal be allowed.' "The Applicant's conviction be quashed." 'A new trial be ordered.' 'List the matter in the Arraignments List in the Sydney District Court on 8 July 2022 at 9.30am.']