Regina v KG [2001] NSWCCA 510

Regina v KG [2001] NSWCCA 510

R v Tillott laid down advisory guidelines and procedural safeguards for the admissibility of evidence from a witness who had undergone EMDR, not mandatory rules of exclusion; thus, the lack of video recording alone does not automatically render such evidence inadmissible.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: KG
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Submission of Question of Law Pursuant to S 5 A(2) of Criminal Appeal Act / Court of Criminal Appeal; Post Acquittal Referral by Director of Public Prosecutions
Outcome
Appeal question answered; no further relief granted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Effect of Therapeutic Procedures on Witness Testimony, Interpretation of Case Law
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Effect of Therapeutic Procedures on Witness Testimony Interpretation of Case Law

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

KG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Submission of Question of Law Pursuant to S 5 A(2) of Criminal Appeal Act / Court of Criminal Appeal; Post Acquittal Referral by Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R v Tillott (1995) 38 NSWLR 1 requires mandatory exclusion of evidence from a witness subjected to EMDR if not video-recorded
  2. 2 Whether R v Tillott remains good law in light of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

R v Tillott laid down advisory guidelines and procedural safeguards for the admissibility of evidence from a witness who had undergone EMDR, not mandatory rules of exclusion; thus, the lack of video recording alone does not automatically render such evidence inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal question answered; no further relief granted.

Orders

  • Question 1: Answered no. Evidence of a witness who has undergone EMDR without video recording is not rendered inadmissible per se by R v Tillott.
  • Not necessary to answer questions 2 and 3.