Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChin, Jason
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-24
dc.date.available2020-09-24
dc.date.issued2020-09-24
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/23471
dc.description.abstractThis article makes a case for pre-recorded, modularized expert evidence as a way to improve access to justice in some intimate partner violence (IPV) cases. Knowledge about the effects and dynamics of IPV regularly plays an important role in criminal trials. This knowledge is often beyond the ken of the factfinder, and thus can provide important context for the case facts. It may also assist in disabusing misconceptions surrounding IPV. Despite the potential value of this knowledge, several rules of evidence and the general nature of the Anglo-American trial process make it difficult to tender such evidence. For instance, trials prefer live testimony of expert witnesses over other means of conveying exogenous knowledge. These limitations place impecunious parties in regional areas at a disadvantage because they may struggle to find qualified experts. As a result, cross-examined pre-recorded modules about IPV (e.g., factors that prevent individuals from leaving abusive relationships, IPV as coercive control) may be helpful in some cases.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0en
dc.subjectlawen
dc.subjectevidenceen
dc.subjectdomestic violenceen
dc.subjectbattered woman syndromeen
dc.subjectexpert evidenceen
dc.subjectdauberten
dc.subjectmohanen
dc.subjectuniform evidence lawen
dc.titlePre-recorded expert evidence in intimate partner violence casesen
dc.typePreprinten
dc.subject.asrc18 Law and Legal Studiesen
dc.subject.asrc1801 Lawen
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law Schoolen
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.