R v Afshar-Doust [2006] NSWDC 130

R v Afshar-Doust [2006] NSWDC 130

There was no diagnosis of hypersexuality and no evidence that the complainant suffered from hypersexuality despite years of treatment. The reference to hypersexuality in Dr Crimmins' 1994 report was described as bad terminology, and allowing cross-examination about it would not assist the jury in determining what occurred in December 2004 but would lead to impermissible speculation and raise issues of sexual reputation contrary to s293 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Sexual Assault / Defence Application on Voir Dire to Cross Examine About Hypersexuality
Outcome
Application to cross-examine about hypersexuality refused.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'sexual Reputation Evidence' 'hypersexuality' 'voir Dire']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Assault' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'sexual Reputation Evidence' 'hypersexuality' 'voir Dire']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Sexual Assault / Defence Application on Voir Dire to Cross Examine About Hypersexuality

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defence should be permitted to cross-examine Dr Crimmins and the complainant's mother about references to hypersexuality in connection with the complainant." "Whether evidence about hypersexuality would prove a fact in issue or would instead raise impermissible speculation or concern the complainant's sexual reputation contrary to s293 of the Criminal Procedure Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no diagnosis of hypersexuality and no evidence that the complainant suffered from hypersexuality despite years of treatment. The reference to hypersexuality in Dr Crimmins' 1994 report was described as bad terminology, and allowing cross-examination about it would not assist the jury in determining what occurred in December 2004 but would lead to impermissible speculation and raise issues of sexual reputation contrary to s293 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Court Disposition

Application to cross-examine about hypersexuality refused.

Orders

  • ['Cross-examination of Dr Crimmins in regard to hypersexuality was not allowed.']