Director of public prosecutions says mens sexual history should be allowed as evidence in court

[QuentinSummers]

If they have a history of coercive or abusive behaviour or if they were doing things around the time of the rape that was cause for concern.
Alison Saunders says she wants to enable juries to assess the whole picture.

I think this is a great move. Well done Alison Saunders

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/rape-juries-hear-mens-sexual-history-increase-chance-conviction/

The Secret Barrister had a twitter thread recently about this twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/895185466844225536

She says that just because a prosecutor wants to do something doesn't mean it will happen. If the prosecution wants to tell a jury about a defendant's previous misdeeds, strict statutory criteria must be met. It's up to the judge to decide what is allowed in a particular case.

I thought that whether good/bad character evidence can be included was argued out by the legal teams with the judge (not in front of the jury) and that it depended on the individual circumstances.

I think that's the right approach

It's up to the judge to decide what is allowed in a particular case.

Which is why the Ched Evans trial was such a fiasco. The judge knew a bribe had been offered for testimony, but the jury didn't.

And the judge allowed details of the victim's sex life to be included on the basis of that testimony. Which the jury heard, without knowledge of the possible inducement.

I thought that whether good/bad character evidence can be included was argued out by the legal teams with the judge (not in front of the jury) and that it depended on the individual circumstances.

That's not the general rule in England and Wales. The general rule is that it isn't allowed but can be permitted by the trial judge in certain circa.