R v BDX

In this case, the respondent, BDX, was convicted of incest and related offences against a complainant, his daughter. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the appeal being heard by a full bench of five judges. The primary issue for the court was whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of a defence witness who was called to give an opinion on the complainant’s credibility. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of a defence expert witness who was to give evidence regarding infantile amnesia, and whether the trial judge had given adequate directions to the jury regarding the complainant’s delay in reporting the offences.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in rejecting the evidence of the defence witness who gave an opinion on the complainant’s credibility. The court held that this witness’ evidence should have been admitted as it was relevant to the complainant’s credibility and the weight to be given to her evidence. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of the defence expert witness who was to give evidence regarding infantile amnesia. The court held that the evidence should have been admitted as it was relevant to the complainant’s memory and the reliability of her evidence. The court found that the trial judge had not given adequate directions to the jury regarding the complainant’s delay in reporting the offences, but that this error was not sufficient to warrant a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the appeal should be allowed on the ground that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of the defence expert witness. The court held that the error was not harmless and that it was likely to have had a significant effect on the outcome of the trial. The court held that a retrial was the appropriate remedy and ordered a retrial of the respondent on the charges of incest and related offences.