AG -v- F [2016] JRC 089E (22 April 2016)

Expert evidence on repressed and recovered memory is inadmissible except for a written, consensual explanation of infantile amnesia. The jury is capable of assessing reliability of complainant's memories without further expert input. Prosecution is not obliged to make expert available for cross-examination on inadmissible evidence.

Citation: [2016] JRC 089E
Parties: Prosecution: Attorney General; Defendant: F
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 22 April 2016
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Trial
Outcome: Defence applications to admit expert evidence refused except for written explanation of infantile amnesia.
Legal Topics: Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Repressed and Recovered Memory, False Memory Syndrome, Infantile Amnesia

Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Repressed and Recovered Memory False Memory Syndrome Infantile Amnesia

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecution

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether expert evidence on repressed and recovered memory should be admitted
2 Whether expert evidence on reliability of complainant's memories is admissible
3 Whether prosecution is obliged to make expert available for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defence applications to admit expert evidence refused except for written explanation of infantile amnesia.

Orders

Expert evidence not admitted except for written explanation of infantile amnesia.
Prosecution not obliged to make expert available for cross-examination.