Aziz (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 76

Aziz (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 76

By majority, the Court held that the evidence of Dr Shackel was relevant because it could assist the jury in assessing the complainant's credibility or reliability in light of matters such as delayed disclosure, piecemeal disclosure, lack of overt resistance, continued contact and the circumstances of alleged intra-familial abuse. Her evidence was opinion evidence because it consisted of conclusions or inferences drawn from research and observed data identified in her report, and it was based wholly or substantially on her specialised knowledge from training, study and experience. It was admissible under either or both s 79 and s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and its admission did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time, Leave Under Rule 4.15 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, and Leave to Appeal Against Convictions; Appeal Determined
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave under Rule 4.15 granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'child Sexual Offences' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge About Child Sexual Abuse and Child Behaviour' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Ss 79 and 108 C']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'child Sexual Offences' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge About Child Sexual Abuse and Child Behaviour' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Ss 79 and 108 C']

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 Conviction / Application for Extension of Time, Leave Under Rule 4.15 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, and Leave to Appeal Against Convictions; Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under Rule 4.15 to raise a ground not objected to at trial concerning admission of evidence from Dr Rita Shackel.' "Whether the admission of Dr Shackel's evidence about behavioural responses of child victims of sexual abuse caused a miscarriage of justice." "Whether Dr Shackel's evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility or reliability." "Whether Dr Shackel's evidence was opinion evidence based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge within s 79 and s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the evidence of Dr Shackel was relevant because it could assist the jury in assessing the complainant's credibility or reliability in light of matters such as delayed disclosure, piecemeal disclosure, lack of overt resistance, continued contact and the circumstances of alleged intra-familial abuse. Her evidence was opinion evidence because it consisted of conclusions or inferences drawn from research and observed data identified in her report, and it was based wholly or substantially on her specialised knowledge from training, study and experience. It was admissible under either or both s 79 and s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and its admission did...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave under Rule 4.15 granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal.' 'Grant leave under Rule 4.15 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to raise the ground of appeal.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']