At the recent 'Emerging challenges in the management of sexual offence trials' conference held by Monash University and Juries Victoria, the College's Judicial Information Advisor, Matt Weatherson, presented a paper on the latest developments in evidence of distress.
The paper examined statutory reforms, standard jury instructions, and cases since 2020, and identified differences of approach between Queensland and Northern Territory on the one hand, and Victorian authorities on the other, about the need for jury directions to warn that distress generally carries little weight.
Moreover, the paper called for further clarification on the distinction between using distress evidence as corroboration and using it for credibility purposes in sexual assault trials. While the difference between corroboration and credibility is theoretically clear, its practical application becomes challenging in these cases where the complainant's credibility plays a significant role in proving the offence.
In addition, the paper also explored the impact of recent statutory amendments on the understanding of distress evidence. These amendments challenge the idea that visible distress is a reliable indicator of truthfulness in sexual assault cases, requiring courts to adopt a balanced approach that acknowledges the diversity of victim responses to trauma and avoids perpetuating a "model victim" myth.
We invite you to read this paper, which contributes to the ongoing discourse on this crucial topic.