Expert Witness Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials
Questions, Answers and Law Reform in Australia and England
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596120 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Annie Cossins (UNSW Sydney, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 74-113 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2013.17.1.419 |
| OpenAlex | W2006179508 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
A review of the psychological literature shows that jury-eligible citizens rely on a range of misconceptions based on victim and gender stereotypes when assessing the credibility of sexual assault complainants and rendering verdicts. Since these misconceptions are likely to account for the high attrition and low conviction rates in sexual assault trials in both England and Australia, this article investigates whether or not educative information ought to be admitted in these trials via an expert witness or a judicial direction. It also investigates the type of expert evidence that would be admissible in an adversarial context and the legislative models for doing so, based on Australian reforms. The article concludes by making four recommendations for reform to the laws of evidence in Australia, England and Wales
Adversarial system · Context (archaeology · Conviction · Credibility · Criminology · Cross-examination · Expert witness · Jury · Law reform · Legislature · Poison control · Political science · Presumption · Sexual assault · Suicide prevention · Witness · History · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Medicine · Psychology · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
| Citations per year | 0.42 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2014 - 2025 (12) |
| Highly cited | No |