In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that [...].
Answer
the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that [...].
Answer
the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it xual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that <span>the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.