R. v. R.E.M.

R. v. R.E.M.

Because the defence sought to call expert evidence to explain lengthy lapse, memory gaps and delayed recall, and because Canadian authority permits admission of repressed/recovered memory evidence subject to careful scrutiny, the trial judge (while exercising gatekeeper duties) must admit such expert evidence in this case with directions that its reliability and weight are for the trier of fact and that appropriate warnings will be given.

Citation
2004 BCSC 1596
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: R.E.M.; Complainant: C.J.; Complainant: K.A.P.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (pre‑trial Admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Defense expert evidence on repressed/recovered memory admitted for use at trial
Legal Topics
Repressed Memory, Recovered Memory, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Gatekeeper Role, Probative Value Vs Prejudice, Delayed Disclosure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Expert Evidence Psychology Repressed Memory Recovered Memory Admissibility of Expert Evidence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R.E.M.

Accused

C.J.

Complainant

K.A.P.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (pre‑trial Admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on repressed/recovered memory is admissible at trial
  2. 2 Whether the defence should be permitted to call such expert evidence and whether relevance standards differ for defence evidence
  3. 3 The gatekeeper role of the trial judge in excluding unreliable or novel scientific evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defence sought to call expert evidence to explain lengthy lapse, memory gaps and delayed recall, and because Canadian authority permits admission of repressed/recovered memory evidence subject to careful scrutiny, the trial judge (while exercising gatekeeper duties) must admit such expert evidence in this case with directions that its reliability and weight are for the trier of fact and that appropriate warnings will be given.

Court Disposition

Defense expert evidence on repressed/recovered memory admitted for use at trial

Orders

  • Expert evidence on repressed/recovered memory is admissible and may be led by the defence at trial
  • Trial judge to give appropriate warnings and caution to jury about weight and reliability of such evidence