Her Majesty's Advocate v. A [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_B1 (19 July 2005)

Expert evidence from Ms Baird was admissible because the complainer's mental state was outside ordinary jury experience, and fairness required the Crown to rebut defence expert evidence. The evidence was relevant, significant, and met statutory and common law conditions for admissibility.

Citation: [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_B1
Parties: Prosecution: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: A
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 19 July 2005
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Trial (ruling on Evidentiary Objection)
Outcome: Defence objection to Crown's expert evidence repelled
Legal Topics: Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses, Sexual Offences, False Memory Syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses Sexual Offences False Memory Syndrome Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecution

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (ruling on Evidentiary Objection)

Legal Issues

1 Whether expert evidence on the credibility and reliability of a witness is admissible
2 Whether evidence from a clinical psychologist rebutting defence expert testimony is permissible
3 Application of section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defence objection to Crown's expert evidence repelled

Orders

Crown permitted to lead evidence from Ms Susan Anne Baird as expert witness
Defence permitted to lead evidence from Dr Janet Boakes with specified limitations