Abstract
This article reviews recent developments in the law governing the admissibility of sexual history evidence in England and Wales. After the decision of the House of Lords in R v A (No. 2), the law reflects a consensus that the complainant's sexual history with third parties is generally irrelevant to the issue of consent in rape trials. In the first part of this article, the justifications for this conclusion are questioned; it is suggested that the relevance of sexual history is a more complex issue than it is usually acknowledged to be. The second part of the article uses points made in the first to question the way in which concepts drawn from the law on similar fact evidence have been used as the admissibility framework for sexual history. Aspects of the decision in R v A are examined in detail.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.