CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Seymour F, Blackwell S, Calvert S, McLean B. Psychiatry Psychol. Law. 2014; 21(4): 511-522. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2014, Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
The Evidence Act 2006 came into law in New Zealand in 2007. Among the many reforms was an amendment to the law pertaining to expert opinion evidence. In keeping with other jurisdictions, New Zealand adopted the "substantial helpfulness" test in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence. Since 2008, the courts have regularly admitted what has been termed "counterintuitive" expert psychological evidence in child sexual abuse trials, and appellate courts have upheld the use of this evidence. Such evidence has the purpose of educating juries, with particular reference to commonly held misconceptions about child sexual abuse. We discuss what is meant by the term counterintuitive evidence, why such evidence has been deemed helpful and the types of counterintuitive evidence currently given by psychologist expert witnesses in the New Zealand courts. |