The appellant challenged the use made of the opinion of counsellors as to the truth or otherwise of the complainants allegng sexual offences. The statements had been obtained under treatment including hypnotherapy. A defence expert had said that there was a risk of false memory arising because hypnotherapy cannot make a person remember what he or she did not remember before, but that evidence had been excluded.
Held: The judge was correct to reject the application to rule A’s evidence inadmissible. The police were not responsible for the counselling sessions and ultimately it was for the jury to assess her credibility in the light of all the evidence that it had heard.
Gage LJ, Nelson J, Sir John Alliott
[2006] EWCA Crim 231
Bailii
olice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – C v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2012
The issue in this appeal relates to the admission of evidence of witnesses, identified in her directions by the judge as expert witnesses, who gave evidence as to the impression they had formed as to the truth of complaints made to them by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.428551
