Judicial Perceptions of Jurors' Understanding of How Children Respond to Sexual Victimisation

Abstract

This article examines judicial views in Australia and overseas on juror understanding of the behavioural responses of children to sexual victimisation. The article highlights that some judges in Australia perceive jurors as being sufficiently knowledgeable on this subject matter so as not to warrant the use of expert opinion evidence in child sexual assault trials. In contrast, many judges in the United States and Canada have concluded to the contrary, that jurors lack sufficient understanding of the behaviour of sexually abused children and the underlying dynamics of child sexual abuse so as to necessitate the use of expert evidence at trial. Such stark differences in judges' assessment of jurors' understanding of this subject matter give rise to questions regarding the basis upon which judges are making such conclusions and the validity of these conclusions. This article points to the fact that judges in Australia and overseas have seemingly reached decisions in relation to this issue on the basis of their own subjective views without any recourse to more objective data, such as the findings of empirical research. Such subjective decision-making introduces potential bias into the trial process.