Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.