BQ v The King

The case of BQ v The King concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the appellant, BQ, who had been convicted of multiple child sexual offences against his nieces. The dispute centred on the admissibility and use of expert evidence adduced by the prosecution from an Associate Professor concerning the possible responses of child sexual assault victims, particularly within an intra-familial context.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the expert evidence given by Associate Professor Shackel went beyond her accepted area of expertise and was therefore inadmissible, and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the trial judge's failure to provide specific directions to the jury limiting the use of this expert evidence. The appellant argued that the expert's opinions were not based on specialised knowledge within her field and that the jury might have illegitimately used her evidence to infer the credibility of the complainants.

The High Court held that all of Associate Professor Shackel's evidence concerning the possible responses of child sexual assault victims was within her accepted area of expertise, which was informed by her training, study, and experience in psychology and law, including her PhD research on expert testimony in child sexual assault cases. The Court found that her evidence explained that victim responses vary and that non-resistance or compliance is not uncommon, particularly in intra-familial contexts where abuse may occur within everyday family activities, blurring normal interaction with inappropriate touching. The Court concluded that there was no occasion to direct the jury that the evidence said nothing about the complainants' credibility, as it was relevant to their assessment. Furthermore, the Court found no appreciable risk of the jury putting the evidence to an illegitimate use that would warrant any particular direction.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.