Abstract
THE disclosure of confidential records such as those of doctors, counsellors, and therapists may be sought by the defence as a means of undermining the credibility of complainants in rape and sexual assault trials. It is not clear that the procedure under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, under which disclosure of the records of third parties may be sought, offers sufficient protection for the interests of complainants. This article discusses the weaknesses of section 2 and the implications of public interest immunity as well as Article 8 of the ECHR in this context. It also explores the different approaches taken in Canada, New South Wales and certain American jurisdictions to meet this problem. It concludes by making some suggestions for the amendment of the 1965 Act.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
