BQ v The KingCitation:[2024] HCA 29Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:14 Aug 2024Case Number:S173/2023Read more

BQ v The KingCitation:[2024] HCA 29Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:14 Aug 2024Case Number:S173/2023Read more

The court held that the expert evidence concerning the responses of victims of child sexual assault in the intra-familial context was admissible as it was based on specialised knowledge within the accepted area of expertise. The evidence did not exceed the boundaries of the expert's field, and there was no miscarriage of justice arising from the absence of specific jury directions.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Opinion Evidence, Credibility Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Child Sexual Offences
Evidence Law Criminal Law Expert Evidence Opinion Evidence Credibility Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Child Sexual Offences

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert evidence concerning responses of victims of child sexual assault was admissible under s 79(1) and s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the expert evidence went beyond the accepted area of expertise
  3. 3 Whether failure to give jury directions regarding the use of expert evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the expert evidence concerning the responses of victims of child sexual assault in the intra-familial context was admissible as it was based on specialised knowledge within the accepted area of expertise. The evidence did not exceed the boundaries of the expert's field, and there was no miscarriage of justice arising from the absence of specific jury directions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No miscarriage of justice found