Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333

Facts: Defendant (D) (Lancaster) was convicted for sexual offences against 2 children under 16. Each child had files with the Department of Human Services (DHS). D counsel subpoenaed the files and commissioned a consultant neuropsychologist to give expert opinion based on the material in the reports (re the mental state of each complainant (C) and the effect on the reliability of their testimony). The trial judge (TJ) upheld the prosecution’s (Pr) objection that the records were hearsay and not “business records” (under s 69 Evidence Act) and, thus, were inadmissible. TJ also ruled that the neuropsychologist’s expert report was inadmissible because it was based on inadmissible material. D appealed. 

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now