Sexual History Evidence in Rape Trials

  • Olivia Smith
Chapter

Abstract

Chapter  3 outlined the use of rape myths to undermine the survivor’s credibility. This chapter will unpack another common way in which evidence was challenged: sexual history. Sexual history evidence has been restricted since the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, but the retrial of Ched Evans in October 2016 highlighted its ongoing use in court and significantly widened the type of evidence that could be adduced. Despite being initially convicted of rape in April 2013, Evans was acquitted at retrial following claims that the complainant had previously used similar sexual phrases and positions to those described by Evans. News coverage of the retrial criticised this, with Harriet Harman, MP, calling for an amendment to the Prisons and Courts Bill which would tighten restrictions on sexual history evidence. Both this, and a similar call to amend the Sexual Offences Bill, were put on hold after Theresa May called a general election in May 2017, but the proposed amendments are due to be discussed again under a new title of Courts Bill soon. It is unclear exactly when this will happen, but this chapter can inform such policy debates by showing that current restrictions are ineffective. There is no up-to-date academic evidence on the use of sexual history in English and Welsh trials, so this chapter provides essential data from which to have an empirical basis for discussion. Once again, I argue that the criminal justice system is deeply flawed in its ability to provide justice for survivors, this time because safeguards against sexual history evidence are easily undermined using legal discourses about fair trial and consent. While these observations relate to English and Welsh trials, such discourses are relevant to other countries which similarly seek to limit the use of sexual history in court.

References

  1. Baird, V. (2018). The impact on future rape trials of the Ched Evans case. Privately circulated, with publication forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  3. Burman, M., Jamieson, L., Nicholson, J., & Brooks, O. (2007). Impacts of aspects of the law of evidence in sexual offence trials: An evaluation study. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, L., & Cowan, S. (2017). The relevance of sexual history and vulnerability in the prosecution of sexual offences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Catton, K. (1975). Evidence regarding the prior sexual history of an alleged rape victim—Its effect on the perceived guilt of the accused. University of Toronto Faculty Law Review, 33, 165–180.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, J. (2014). Independent legal representation for complainers in sexual offence cases. In J. Chalmers, F. Leverick, & A. Shaw (Eds.), Post-corroboration safeguards review: Report of the academic expert group (pp. 185–189). Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  7. Counihan, C., & Wall, A. (2015). Legal information pack for practitioners advising survivors of sexual violence. Dublin: Rape Crisis Network Ireland.Google Scholar
  8. Crown Prosecution Service. (n.d.). Rape and sexual offences: Chapter 4: Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Retrieved from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/yjcea_1999/
  9. Daigneault, I., Hébert, M., & Duff, P. (2009). Men’s and women’s childhood sexual abuse and victimisation in adult partner relationships: A study of risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(9), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durham, R., Lawson, R., Lord, A., & Baird, V. (2016). Seeing is believing: The Northumbria Court Observers Panel Report on 30 rape trials 2015–2016. Newcastle: Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell, J. (2017). Vixens, sirens and whores: The persistence of stereotypes in sexual offence law. Trinity College Law Review, 20, 30.Google Scholar
  14. Fenton, Z. (1998). Domestic violence in black and white: Racialised gender stereotypes in gender violence. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 8(1), 1–65.Google Scholar
  15. Flowe, H. D., Ebbesen, E. B., & Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. (2007). Rape shield laws and sexual behaviour evidence: Effects of consent level and women’s sexual history on rape allegations. Law & Human Behaviour, 31(3), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garvin, M., & Beloof, D. E. (2015). Crime victim agency: Independent lawyers’ for sexual assault victims. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13, 67–88.Google Scholar
  17. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hansard HC vol. 621 col. 431 (8 February 2017) [Electronic version].Google Scholar
  19. Hansard HL col. 1218 (23 March 1999) [Electronic version].Google Scholar
  20. Hanly, C., Healy, D., & Scriver, S. (2009). Rape and justice in Ireland: A national study of survivor, prosecutor and court responses to rape. Dublin: The Liffey Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hoyano, L. (2015). Reforming the adversarial trial for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Criminal Law Review, 2, 107–129.Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Kelly, L., Temkin, J., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Section 41: An evaluation of new legislation limiting sexual history evidence in rape trials. Home Office Report 20/06, Home Office, London.Google Scholar
  24. Lees, S. (1997). Carnal knowledge: Rape on trial. London: Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mackinnon, C. (2005). Women’s lives, men’s laws. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McDonald, E., & Tinsley, Y. (2011). Use of alternative ways of giving evidence by vulnerable witnesses: Current proposals, issues and challenges. Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers, 1(1), Paper 2/2011.Google Scholar
  27. McEwan, J. (2005). Proving consent in sexual cases: Legislative change and cultural evolution. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 9(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGlynn, C. (2010). Feminist activism and rape law reform in England and Wales: A Sisyphean struggle? In C. McGlynn & V. E. Munro (Eds.), Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives (pp. 139–153). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. McGlynn, C. (2017). Reforming the law on sexual history evidence: Reforming the law on third party evidence. Journal of Criminal Law, 81(5), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris, S. (2016, October 18). Barristers say ‘over-reaction’ to Ched Evans case counterproductive. Guardian Online. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/18/criminal-barristers-over-reaction-ched-evans-counterproductive-victims-sex-assault
  31. New Statesman. (2016, October 18). Why the Ched Evans verdict does not set a dangerous precedent. New Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/10/why-ched-evans-verdict-does-not-set-dangerous-precedent
  32. R v Andre Barrington White [2001] EWCA Crim 946.Google Scholar
  33. R v Evans [2016] EWCA Crim 452.Google Scholar
  34. R v C [2009] UKHL 42.Google Scholar
  35. R v Hamadi [2007] EWCA Crim 3048.Google Scholar
  36. R v V CA [2006] EWCA Crim. 1901.Google Scholar
  37. Raitt, F. (2010). Independent legal representation for complainants in rape trials. In C. McGlynn & V. Munro (Eds.), Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives (pp. 67–280). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Redmayne, M. (2003). Myths, relationships and coincidences: The new problems of sexual history. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 7(2), 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuller, R., & Hastings, P. (2002). Complainant sexual history: Its impact on mock juror decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(3), 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sexual Offences Act 1976. London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  41. Smart, C. (1992). The woman of legal discourse. Social & Legal Studies, 1(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spohn, C., & Horney, J. (2013). Rape law reform: A grassroots revolution and its impact. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Temkin, J. (1984). Regulating sexual history evidence: The limits of discretionary legislation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 33(4), 942–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Temkin, J. (2003). Sexual history evidence: Beware the backlash. Criminal Law Review, 4, 217–242.Google Scholar
  45. Temkin, J., Gray, J., & Barrett, J. (2016). Different functions of rape myth use in court: Findings from a trial observation study. Feminist Criminology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116661627
  46. Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford: Hart Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, L. (2005). Independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault: A model for delivery of legal services. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 23(2), 249–312.Google Scholar
  48. Wolhuter, L. (2010). German and Swedish procedures as models for the empowerment of racial minority women in rape trials. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 38(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999. London: HM Stationary Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivia Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesAnglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations