Memory science in the Pell appeals: impossibility, timing, inconsistencies

[7-940] Article

J Goodman-Delahunty, N Martschuk and M Nolan, “Memory science in the Pell appeals: impossibility, timing, inconsistencies” (2020) 44 Crim LJ 232.

Abstract

This study examines the appeals from the conviction of Cardinal Pell in terms of memory. It describes how assumptions about memory operated in the legal decisions, including an assumption that memory about routine practice was to be believed in the face of a complainant’s memory. It questions whether a complainant’s episodic memory was under-valued, and schematic recall of repeated events by witnesses potentially overly relied on.

This article was first published by Thomson Reuters in the Criminal Law Journal and should be cited as J Goodman-Delahunty, N Martschuk and M Nolan, “Memory science in the Pell appeals: impossibility, timing, inconsistencies”, (2020) 44 Crim LJ 232.

For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search.

The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase.

This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.au