End the use of women’s sexual history in court (Law change needed)

The Times, Law, Tuesday July 13, 1999

The defence should not be able to question victims on their sexual history, say Ruth Hall and Lisa Longstaff
... We wrote to the unit this year as part of our campaign to end trawling through the victim's sexual history to discredit her, a key cause of police not recording a rape and the Crown Prosecution Service not prosecuting it . The unit said sexual history is sometimes relevant: "...a defendant might claim that he believed that the complainant was consenting because he had been told that she always kicked and screamed during sex. This would be relevant to his honest belief".

Jay faces row on change in rape evidence
The Times, MONDAY MARCH 1 1999BY FRANCES GIBB, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

THE Minister for Women. Baroness Jay of Paddington, was at the centre of a row last night over plans to reform the admissibility of the sexual history of a woman victim as evidence in rape trials. The proposals are soon to be considered by the House of Lords. They are opposed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the organisation Women against gape for conflicting reasons.

The controversy has been fuelled by the disclosure that the Government's own Women's Unit, headed by Lady Jay, says that there are times when a woman's sexual history may be relevant. In particular, the unit says that it could be relevant to whether a man thought a woman had consented to sex or not — the attacker's defence that he — "thought she wanted it".

Dear Home Secretary Jack Straw,
Re: excluding victims’ sexual history from rape trials

Response to Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women, Baroness Margaret Jay's article published in The Journal, Issue 142, June 25

MALIKA THOMPSON, Black Women's Rape Action Project
LISA LONGSTAFF, Women Against Rape

Rape trial rules flouted by 'devious' barristers
The Times June 21, 2006, Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

DEVIOUS barristers and ignorant judges are frustrating the Government’s attempt to stop details of a woman’s sexual past being disclosed in rape trials, according to a report published yesterday.

Rape victims continue to believe that having a number of sexual partners gives them a “reputation” and implies that they are less worthy of belief by the authorities.

Barristers who use devious tactics to get round the law are being aided by judges who are unaware of the crown court rules and have little knowledge of the legislation that was introduced in 1999.

The new rules have had no “discernible effect” on the number of allegations of rape ending in a successful prosecution as the conviction rate has continued to fall, according to the report published by the Home Office.

Keep victims' sexual history out of rape trials!

On Tuesday 8 December 1998, about 80 women and several men gathered in the House of Commons for Women Against Rape’s briefing, "End the Second Rape, Keep Victims’ Sexual History out of Rape Trials". Instead of the usual long MPs speeches, 18 women who spoke of their own experience - strikingly for an anti-rape event, many speakers were Black and immigrant. Women of all ages, with and without disabilities, single mothers . . . described rape by strangers, fathers, husbands and boyfriends and on mixed mental hospital wards and by the police and military in other countries. Many described speaking about their ordeal in court, in police stations, and in immigration interviews and tribunal/appeal hearings - as the second rape. Whatever their background wherever they were from their experiences were the same disbelief and humiliation.