I understand s23g evidence act is widely criticised because it has no logical probative value i.e. it allows expert winesses to state that ANY (or all) behaviours are consistent with sexual abuse, not "it allowed an expert to say that there was no behaviour inconsistent with sexual abuse." Why use the double negative? Richard 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Richard, I think you're correct but I was quoting Thorp, who I understand used the double negative. 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher
- OK, I've since noticed that Bernard Robertson used same double negative in his criticism of 23g as well. Perhaps it's an innate characteristic of legal people to create complexity out of simplicity. [deity of your choice] help us all. Richard 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
.JPG)
