R v Fortune (a pseudonym)

The case of R v Fortune involved the Crown prosecuting the defendant on charges of child sexual assault. The defendant sought to tender the report of Dr Shackel, an expert witness, to provide evidence that would challenge commonly held beliefs about the behaviour of victims of child sexual abuse. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether Dr Shackel's report met the criteria for admissibility as expert evidence under the Uniform Evidence Acts, and whether the content of the report, which included reference to myths and misconceptions about child sexual abuse, was relevant and reliable. The court had to determine whether the proposed evidence would assist the trier of fact to resolve an issue that was directly in dispute in the proceeding.

The court found that Dr Shackel's report did not meet the criteria for admissibility. The court held that the report contained information that was not based on sufficient facts or data, and that it was not shown to be based on accepted knowledge in the field of child sexual abuse. The court also found that the report's content was not relevant to the issues in dispute in the proceeding, as it did not assist in resolving any fact that was directly in dispute. The court further held that the report was not reliable, as it contained assertions that were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court rejected the tender of Dr Shackel's report, finding that it was not admissible as expert evidence.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was unable to rely on Dr Shackel's report in their defence. The case proceeded to trial without the disputed evidence, and the outcome of the trial is not known from the information provided.