The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in ruling the proposed opinion evidence of a psychologist inadmissible and in admitting a child's out-of-court statement.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the expert evidence was unnecessary as it did not fall outside the experience of a trial judge.
The Court also found no error in admitting the out-of-court statement, as the hearsay dangers were overcome by the opportunity for cross-examination, videotape evidence of demeanour, and the child's understanding of truth and falsehood.
The appeal was dismissed.
