The appellant appealed convictions for multiple historical sexual offences arising from alleged abuse over a six-year period beginning when the complainant was a child.
The appeal focused on expert psychiatric evidence describing trauma symptoms and a 24-factor assessment tool said to be consistent with sexual abuse, as well as the adequacy of the jury charge on that evidence.
The majority held that substantial parts of the psychiatrist’s evidence amounted to impermissible oath-helping because it conveyed a belief in the complainant’s truthfulness, and that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury against that use.
Given that credibility was central and there was no independent evidence of abuse, the convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered.
A dissenting judge would have dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.
