In the wake of the Ched Evans appeal, retrial and his subsequent acquittal last Friday there has been a lot of media comment about whether it was right for the Court of Appeal judges to quash the original conviction and allow sexual history evidence about the complainant into a retrial.
The document I link to here is something I read last night which lays out in detail the case for restricting sexual history evidence and also the criteria by which the defence can apply to have it exempted from the restrictions.
I did not find the paper particularly reassuring - the cases described seem to, like the Ched Evans trial, equate behaving in a similar way in a consensual situation as giving grounds for the accused to have reasonable doubt where consent was claimed by the defence and denied by the complainant or the prosecution (as in this case).
The paper also says that there is a lot of confusion about the law and these restrictions, even among judges and barristers.
This paper, although fairly heavy reading, gives a lot of food for thought. It is quite critical of the idea of restricting sexual evidence overall, though the author believes there should be a balanced approach.
I would welcome all opinions on this for an open-minded discussion, because it is a critical issue for women in rape cases, and far too many legal opinions on this following the CE case are dismissive, patronising and accuse womens' groups and journalists of scaremongering and discourage women from reporting rape on false grounds. I am concerned about this as I feel they are merely naming a problem and the problem is with the legal system, and situations like this are exactly what discourage women from reporting rape.
Link to the relevant legislation (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999)
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/41
The UK Law Student Review paper (12 pages)
www.uklsa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/UKLSR-v3i1-A1.pdf
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Sexual history in rape cases - its uses and restrictions as described in UK Law Student Review paper.
venusinscorpio · 18/10/2016 12:43
This thread is a very informative read! Thank you for posting all the research and sources you've found here! 
The climbing frame example (and allowance of similarities such as that) is ridiculous, and has quite annoyed me. A woman could have had upside down sex in a clown costume, in a treehouse, one hundred times before, and then the 101st time say "actually I don't think I want to do it this time," and it would be no less rape if her partner kept going, than if they had never done anything similar to that before.
The similarity in sexual acts or circumstance should be irrelevant.
And in the Evans case, introducing two witnesses who said she'd behaved in a similar way with them really only produces two more potential rapists to be investigated, imo. It certainly shouldn't clear Evans - especially considering his contradictory statements over whether or not he spoke to her, and the monetary reward offered to witnesses to come forward.
Yes, that could be a scenario, but you don't need the actual offences itself to be carried out in order to obtain a conviction for conspiracy or incitement (at least I don't think so 
).
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.