July-December 2018
ISSN 2516-1210 (Print), 2515-9887 (Online)
Restrictive legislation prohibiting the cross examination of sexual offence complainants about their previous sexual behaviour is a common feature of most Common Law jurisdictions. The current mechanism by which this line of questioning is restricted in England and Wales is section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which prima facie prohibits such questioning save for four limited exceptions. Yet the sustainability of s.41 has been called into question, Harriet Harman MP has proposed an amendment to the Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill currently before Parliament that would see the prohibition of questions about sexual behaviour with third parties. A number of academic commentators go further and suggest the similarity clause within s.41(3)c(i), which allows evidence of the complainant’s sexual behaviour to be included should it be “so similar” to their behaviour at the time of the alleged offence, should also be removed. It will be argued, however, that legislative reform relating to both third party evidence and the similarity gateway is unnecessary, instead there is much more to be gained by focusing on the broader application of s.41, addressing both procedural inconsistencies and “rape myths” that have potential to operate notwithstanding legislative protections.
2 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 section 41
3 Although the text of s.41–43 YJCEA refers to “sexual behaviour” this article will use “sexual history” as in line with the majority of academic literature
4 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 section 41(3)(a)–(c)
5 Clare McGlynn, ‘Rape trials and sexual history evidence: reforming the law on third-party evidence’, Journal of Criminal Law, 2017, 81(5), 367–392, p. 367
6 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, Section 41: an evaluation of new legislation limiting sexual history evidence in rape trials, <http://217.35.77.12/research/england/justice/rdsolr2006.pdf>, [accessed 25 January 2018], p.61
7 Office for National Statistics, Sexual Offences in England and Wales: Year ending March 2017, <https://www.ons.gov.uk> [accessed 28 March 2018]
8 Victim Support, Victim Support policy statement – sexual offences, <www.victimsupport.org.uk> [accessed 2 March 2018] p.3
9 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, p.62
10 Dame Rose Heilbron was the first female barrister to take silk, the first female to be awarded a scholarship to Gray’s Inn, the first female barrister to lead in a murder case, the first female treasurer of Gray’s Inn and the first female judge to sit at the Old Bailey.
11 Home Office, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, 1975, <www.ncjrs.gov> [accessed 20 February 2018], p.15
12 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 section 2
13 Jennifer Temkin, ‘Sexual history evidence – the ravishment of s.2’, Criminal Law Review, 1993, Jan, 3–20
14 Jennifer Temkin, ‘Sexual history evidence – beware the backlash’, Criminal Law Review, 2003, April, 217–242, p.217
15 Ian Dennis, The Law of Evidence, 6th edn, (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2017)
16 Zsuzsanna Adler, Rape on Trial (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987)
17 Jennifer Temkin, ‘Sexual history evidence – beware the backlash’, p.220
18 R v Seaboyer (1991) 83 DLR (4th) 193, 258, 278C
19 R v Seaboyer (1991) 83 DLR (4th) 193, 258, 278C
20 Speaking Up for Justice, Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on the Treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System, (Home Office, June, 1998)
21 Sarah Zydervelt, R Zajac, A Kaladelfos and N Westera, ‘Lawyers’ strategies for cross examining rape complainants: have we moved beyond the 1950’s?’, British Journal of Criminology, (2016) February 1–19, p.3
22 J. E. Williams, ‘Secondary Victimization: Confronting Public Attitudes about Rape’, Victimology, (1984) 9, 66–91
23 Sue Lees, ‘Judicial Rape’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 1998, 16(1), 11–36
24 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence 1999 section 41(1)
25 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence 1999 section 41(6)
26 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence 1999 section 41(4)
27 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence 1999 section 41(2)(b)
28 Jennifer Temkin, ‘Sexual history evidence – beware the backlash’, p.242
29 Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 2nd edn, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p.446
30 Home Office, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, 1975, <www.ncjrs.gov> [accessed 20 February 2018], p.23
31 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 s.2
32 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(1)
33 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.42(1)(c)
34 R v P [2013] EWCA Crim 2331
35 R v P [2013] EWCA Crim 2331, pp.30 ‘it does not seem to us that to ask a person about whether someone has assisted her in and about the obtaining of a lawful abortion can be said to be a question “about” sexual behaviour. Self-evidently, it is not’
36 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, p.40
37 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, p.vii
38 Criminal Code 1985 s.276(1) (Canada)
39 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s.293 (New South Wales)
40 R v Ben-Rejab (Anouar) [2011] EWCA Crim 1136
41 R v Ben-Rejab (Anouar) [2011] EWCA Crim 1136, pp.35
42 R v Mukadi (Patrick) [2003] EWCA Crim 3765, pp.14
43 Human Rights Act 1999
44 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR) art 6
45 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25
46 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.47
47 Neil Kibble, ‘Judicial discretion and the admissibility of prior sexual history evidence under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: sometimes sticking to your guns means shooting yourself in the foot: Part 2’, Criminal Law Review, 2005, April, 263–274, p.264
48 Human Rights Act 1999 section 3(1) ‘So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights’
49 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.68
50 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.68
51 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.70
52 Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379
53 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, ‘Turning Mirrors into Windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials’, The British Journal of Criminology, 2009, 49(3), 363–383
54 Hansard, House of Commons debate, 15 April 1999, (second reading) vol 329 cc385–458 at 458
55 Mike Redmayne, ‘Myths, relationships and coincidences: the new problem of sexual history’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 2003, 7(2), 75–101
56 Simon Bronitt, Comparative Perspectives on the Fair Trial Principle: A Flawed Balance?, <https://www.scribd.com> [accessed 2 April 2018], p.5
57 Human Rights Act 1999 section 3
58 Hansard, Lord Irvine, House of Lords debates, 5 Feb 1998, (3rd reading) col 840
59 Neil Kibble, ‘Judicial discretion and the admissibility of prior sexual history evidence under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: sometimes sticking to your guns means shooting yourself in the foot: Part 2’, p.263
61 Clare McGlynn, p.367
62 See page 7 for full text of s.41(3)(c)(i)
63 Home Office, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, 1975, <www.ncjrs.gov> [accessed 20 February 2018], p.23
64 House of Commons, The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, Bill 74 of 1998–1999, Research paper 99/40, <www.parliament.uk> [accessed 2 February 2018], p.53
65 House of Commons, The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, Bill 74 of 1998–1999, Research paper 99/40, <www.parliament.uk> [accessed 2 February 2018], p.54
66 R v Evans (Chedwyn) [2016] EWCA Crim 452
67 Lord Williams of Mostyn, House of Lords debate, 23 March 1999, vol 598 cc1183–237, pp.1218
68 Home Office, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, 1975, <www.ncjrs.gov> [accessed 20 February 2018]
69 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.70
70 Neil Kibble, ‘Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: fundamentally flawed or fairly balanced?’, Archbold News, 2004, 6–9, p.9
71 Canadian Criminal Code 1985 section 276(2)(c)
72 R v Evans (Chedwyn) [2016] EWCA Crim 452, pp.74
73 R v T (Abdul) [2004] EWCA Crim 1220
74 R v T (Abdul) [2004] EWCA Crim 1220, pp.15
75 Findlay Stark, ‘Bringing the background to the fore in sexual history evidence’, Archbold Review, 2017, 8, 4–8, p.6
76 R v Hamadi (Zeeyad) [2007] EWCA Crim 3048
77 R v Hamadi (Zeeyad) [2007] EWCA Crim 3048, pp.23
78 R v Hamadi (Zeeyad) [2007] EWCA Crim 3048, pp.23
79 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.96
80 Clare McGlynn, p.389
81 Clare McGlynn, p.389
82 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(5)(b)
83 Clare McGlynn, p.369
84 Hansard, Lord Williams of Mostyn, House of Lords debate, 23 March 1999, vol 598 cc1183–237, pp.1216
85 Clare McGlynn, p.390
86 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.81
87 R v T (Abdul) [2004] EWCA Crim 1220, pp.11
88 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 c.23 explanatory note 148. ‘It is expected that “at or about the same time” will generally be interpreted no more widely than 24 hours before or after the offence’
89 R v Evans (Chedwyn) [2016] EWCA Crim 452 in which the similar behaviour occurred 1) a number of days prior to the alleged rape and 2) a fortnight after, R v T (Abdul) [2004] EWCA Crim 1220 the similar behaviour occurred 3 weeks prior to the alleged rape
90 R v Cooper [2009] UKHL 42, pp.27
91 Personal email exchange with St Alban Crown Court, 21 March 2018
92 See page 19
93 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.101 per Lord Hutton ‘I propose to confine my observations to a case such as the present one where a defendant seeks to give evidence of the complainant having had previous consensual sexual intercourse with him’
94 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25, p.60 per Lord Steyn
95 Clare McGlynn, p.384
96 Prison and Courts Bill 2016/17, <https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/prisonsandcourts.html>
97 Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill 2018 <https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-18>
98 <http://www.harrietharman.org> [accessed 30 March 2018] ‘The coalition is calling for a change in the law so that a complainant’s sexual activity with anyone other than the defendant is not allowed to be used as evidence to show consent’
99 Olivia Smith, ‘Is Sexual History Fair Game?’, Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 2018, 182(2)
100 Baird, Lawson, Lord and Durham, *Seeing is Believing: The Northumbria Court Observers Panel Report on 30 rape trials 2015–16*, <www.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk> [accessed 1 March 2018]
101 Baird, Lawson, Lord and Durham, p.4
102 R v Evans (Chedwyn) [2016] EWCA Crim 452, pp.74
103 See: Nick Dent & Sandra Paul, ‘In defence of section 41’, Criminal Law Review, 2017, 8, 613-627; Clare McGlynn, ‘Challenging the law on sexual history evidence: a response to Dent and Paul’, Criminal Law Review, 2018, 3, 216-228; and Findlay Stark, ‘Bringing the background to the fore in sexual history evidence’, Archbold Review, 2017, 8, 4-8
104 See also: Olivia Smith, ‘Is Sexual History Fair Game?’, Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 2018, 182(2)
105 John Braithwaite, ‘Juvenile Offending: New Theory and Practice’ in National Conference on Juvenile Justice ed. by L. Atkinson and S. Gerull, (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1993), p.36
106 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37616871, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37628997, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/facebook-messages-sent-ched-evans-9030371
107 Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2018 part 22.4
108 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, p. 23
109 Jennifer Temkin, Jacqueline Gray and Jastine Barrett, ‘Different functions of rape myths in court: findings from a trial observational study’, Feminist Criminology, 2018, 13(2), 205-226, p.213
110 Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, part 22.4 (2)a(ii)
111 Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, part 22.4 (2)b(i)
112 Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, part 22.4 (2)b(ii)
113 Pamela Davies, Gender Crime and Victimisation, (London: Sage Publications, 2011), p.195
114 Ministry of Justice, Limiting the use of complainants’ sexual history in sex cases, December 2017, Cm 9547, <www.gov.uk> [accessed 30 January 2018]
115 Ministry of Justice, Limiting the use of complainants’ sexual history in sex cases, p.7
116 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s.275(3)
117 Judicial College, Judicial College Prospectus: April 2018-March 2019, <https://www.judiciary.gov.uk> [accessed 22 February 2018], p.28
118 Philip Rumney and Rachel Fenton, Judicial training and rape, Journal of Criminal Law, 2011, 75(6), 473-481, p.476
119 See R v Seaboyer (1991) 83 DLR (4th) 193, 258, 278C
120 R v A (no 2) [2001] UKHL 25 p.59
121 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 section 41(4)
122 R v White (Andrew Barrington) [2004] EWCA Crim 946 pp.37
123 Martha Burt, ‘Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1980), 38 (2), 217-230, p.217
124 Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths, p.47
125 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, ‘Turning Mirrors into Windows? Assessing the Impact of (Mock) Juror Education in Rape Trials’, The British Journal of Criminology, (2009), 49(3), 363-383, p.363
126 Judicial College, The Crown Court Compendium, <https://www.judiciary.gov.uk> [accessed 10 March 2018], pp.20-3
127 Helen Reece, ‘Rape Myths: Is Elite Opinion Right and Popular Opinion Wrong?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2013, 33 (3), 445-473, p.546
128 See also: Home Office, The Stern Review, 2010 <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk> [accessed 12 January 2018], p.35 and Home Office, Rape: The Victim Experience Review, 2009, <http://www.uknswp.org> [accessed 11 April 2018], p.10
129 See also: Sandra Walklate and Jacqueline Wheatcroft contrasting “real rape” with “simple rape” in: ‘Thinking Differently About ‘False Allegations’ in Cases of Rape: The Search for Truth’, International Journal of Sociology and Criminology, (2014), 3, 239-248, p.242
130 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, p.372
131 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, p.373
132 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison p.373
133 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, p.371
134 Office for National Statistics, Sexual Offences in England and Wales: Year ending March 2017, <https://www.ons.gov.uk> [accessed 28 March 2018], Ch. 7
135 Liz Roberts MP, <https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-08/debates> [accessed 28 March 2018]
136 Liz Roberts MP, <https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-08/debates> [accessed 28 March 2018]
137 Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 2nd edn, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p.450
138 Andrew Choo, Evidence, 5th edn, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), p.378
139 Jennifer Temkin and Barbara Krahe, Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), p.193
140 R v D [2008] EWCA Crim 2557, pp. 9
141 Philip Rumney and Rachel Fenton, p.479
142 Philip Rumney and Rachel Fenton, p.479
143 Bar Council, <www.barcouncil.org.uk>, press releases, 2016, November [accessed 14 April 2018]
144 Judicial College, The Crown Court Compendium, < https://www.judiciary.gov.uk> [accessed 10 March 2018]
145 Judicial College, The Crown Court Compendium, <https://www.judiciary.gov.uk> [accessed 10 March 2018], pp.20-1
146 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, p.363
147 Vanessa Munro and Louise Ellison, p.371
148 Courts Act 2003 section 74, Constitutional Reform Act 2005 schedule 2 part 1
149 Expert Evidence Criminal Practice Direction 19A <www.judiciary.gov.uk> [accessed 1 May 2018]
150 Helena Kennedy, Eve Was Framed: Women and British Justice, (London: Vintage, 1992)
1 LLM candidate, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Birmingham;
recipient of Kalisher Trust
(2018). Dispelling the rape myths: an evaluation of s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in light of recent reform proposals. Legal issues Journal, 6 (2), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/06-02-12072018/
