During a judge‑alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault against a child complainant, the court conducted a voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence regarding patterns of disclosure by child victims of abuse.
The proposed expert, a clinical psychologist specializing in child abuse, testified generally about delayed and incremental disclosure, inhibitors to disclosure, grooming, and the risk of false memories arising from repeated interviews.
The defence argued the evidence was unnecessary and risked improperly bolstering the complainant’s credibility.
Applying the framework in R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, and distinguishing authorities dealing only with delayed disclosure, the court held that expert evidence on broader patterns of disclosure, including incremental disclosure, inconsistencies, and recantations, could assist the trier of fact.
The court concluded the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and admitted the expert evidence.
