B v R

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Elias CJ,Blanchard,Chambers JJ
• Judgment Date: 03 April 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] NZSC 22
• Docket Number: SC 6/2012
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 03 April 2012

B

and

Thr Queen

[2012] NZSC 22

Court:

Elias CJ, Blanchard and Chambers JJ

SC 6/2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Appeal against conviction on charges of sexual abuse of appellant's children — trial judge refused to admit evidence from defence's expert on incidence of non-reporting of abuse by children — evidence similar to that of Crown's expert but suggested lower level of non-reporting — Court of Appeal said no miscarriage of justice as no significant difference between Crown and defence's expert evidence and the evidence was not likely to be substantially helpful to jury — whether evidence was not substantially helpful.

Counsel:

G J King for Applicant

D J Boldt for Crown

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS

1 The applicant was convicted of sexual offending against three complainants, all of whom were his natural children. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence. 1

2 Mr King, for the applicant, seeks to advance only one matter in this Court. It concerns the admissibility of the evidence of Dr Barry Parsonson, whom the defence intended to call as an expert witness. Judge Farish ruled his evidence inadmissible, a view with which the Court of Appeal agreed, although for different reasons.

3 Prior to trial, the Crown advised they proposed to call as an expert witness Dr Mark Earthrowl, a consultant forensic psychiatrist and the clinical head of the Canterbury Regional Forensic Psychiatric Service. Dr Earthrowl was to give evidence designed to explain “counter intuitive” behaviour sometimes displayed by victims of sexual abuse. The applicant's counsel briefed Dr Parsonson to answer Dr Earthrowl's evidence. The Crown objected to Dr Parsonson's proposed evidence, which they said was inadmissible in terms of s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006. Judge Farish accepted the Crown's submission and ruled the evidence inadmissible primarily on the basis Dr Parsonson was not an expert. Even if he was, she took the view his proposed evidence was not substantially helpful as he did not add materially to what Dr Earthrowl was going to say.

4 The Court of Appeal disagreed with Judge Farish as to Dr...