sexual history of rape victims

[dorade]

As I understand it, judges have the discretion to allow the defence to question a rape complainant on her sexual history. (Please correct me if that is not correct).

Can anyone explain to me why judges need this discretion and under what circumstances, if any, the use of it could be justified?

[larrygrylls]

I think that if a dedicated police unit such as Sapphire is involved, the accuser is generally well prepared (it was certainly the case when I was a juror).

It does seem to be an error to "open the door" to having your sexual past exposed but, again, it certainly was never mentioned in the case that I saw whereas the defendant's previous blade convictions, although in entirely different circumstances, were. I think that there are now guidelines specifically excluding bringing in prior sexual conduct as a defence, unless it goes to the credibility of the accuser (I.E she has claimed something which is provably false, as mentioned in the case upthread)

Ultimately the defendant has to be able to question the credibility of the prosecution evidence, otherwise to accuse is to find guilty. It does not matter if only 1/100 accusations are false, if you are that one, you are entitled to mount some kind of defence.

[wordfactory]

larry it is not routinely allowed. Rightly so.

I think one of best pieces of advice a rape victim can receive is to be as factual as possible. Keep it simple. Keep it straight.

[larrygrylls]

Buffy,

I think, as I said, that would not be allowed under current guidelines. It is now accepted that promiscuity is not an invitation for unwanted sexual conduct so would be excluded by (most) judges on the grounds of being irrelevant. In addition, from the perspective of a juror, a sobbing woman being shouted at to talk about previous sexual encounters is a very dangerous strategy and one that is likely to elicit sympathy for her rather than the reverse.

There are still some old farts in the judiciary but they do tend to get roundly rubbished by most of the media.

[ModeratelyObvious]

Witness or victim, larry, not accuser.

[larrygrylls]

Moderately,

OK, witness technically or alleged victim (until a guilty verdict). Witness sounds extremely strange and ambiguous though, even if correct in law. Victim is an assumption of guilt before proven.

[Norudeshitrequired]

I would feel the same if a man (for example) accused a a woman of sexually assaulting him by means of forcing a dildo into his anus. If the defence had evidence that this man frequently went in search of such activity and was obsessed with looking at such acts on the Internet and had contacted this woman through a website aimed at linking up people for this purpose then I think it would be reasonable for them to submit an application to have that disclosed in the court room.of course the man might have changed his mind and said no - but if that is disputed then the jury has to decide who is telling the truth.
It isn't an evil man and poor woman debate. It's a case of people having a fair trial and the judge permitting relevant information to be disclosed, whether they are male or female.

[ModeratelyObvious]

Witness or victim, larry, not accuser.

[ModeratelyObvious]

In a GBH trial, is the "sufferer" referred to as an accuser?

Normally as the victim, no?

[ModeratelyObvious]

Victim is an assumption that there has been a crime, not that the accused is guilty of that crime.

[larrygrylls]

Buffy,

In any crime, describing the alleged victim as a witness sounds strange to me. If I was burgled I would accuse the burglar of burgling me. Clearly technically the crown would prosecute my case for me and I would be a witness for the crown, but seems pedantic in this kind of forum.

[ModeratelyObvious]

No, it's not pedantic. It's important.

[YoniBottsBumgina]

Well hang on, to pick up an earlier example:

A friend made the comment of if it was a burglary you wouldn't get the victim being asked if they'd previously given things away to charity

No, but it might be relevant if they regularly sell stuff to cash converters and have made several burglary reports previously.

Then surely, the relevant information to find out about victims of sexual assault is whether they are regularly vindictive and if they have made accusations of rape before.

Their sexual history is still nothing to do with an incident of rape. You can't invite somebody to rape you.

[larrygrylls]

It is also important to not refer to a witness as a victim when the defence is that no crime has taken place. A judge would take this very seriously.

[YoniBottsBumgina]

Sorry to use the wrong terminology, was just quoting from an earlier post and using that.

[ModeratelyObvious]

I'm happy with witness.

[YoniBottsBumgina]

Well, rude that is a ridiculous example, because the example you mention is a rather unlikely/unusual situation for a man to be in. It is a rather niche fantasy, no? And it would have to be a humungous coincidence for a man to have that fantasy and be searching it out etc and then suddenly a strange woman comes along and does it to him without his consent. It COULD happen. Maybe she knew about his fantasy but wanted to hurt him, or something. It's still a very unlikely situation.

Whereas women have, and initiate, consensual sex with men all the time. It's a biological urge - survival of the species. We're bound to go looking for it. It doesn't mean that it's okay for a man to come and force it on any woman, that's why it's a crime. But it also makes it pretty irrelevant if a woman has had, or wanted, sex in the past.

[ModeratelyObvious]

Rude, from what word said, that would be disclosable if the man was claiming he had met the woman in a pub but there was evidence he'd actually met her online, or something along those lines.

[YoniBottsBumgina]

YY if he had sought it out but changed his mind halfway through then it is still rape. (Or whatever the non-penis version is)

[Bunnylion]

rude what a bizarre example.

You seem to be implying that liking sex and penises is relevant to whether a woman was raped or not. By the same logic, is a gay man being raped legally any different to a straight man being raped?