Sexual History Evidence: Compatibility with ECHR art.6 0.0 / 5 ? LawCriminal Procedure and Criminal EvidenceUniversityNone Created by: Sarah RocheCreated on: 10-06-17 15:42 What is the key case on this area? A (no 2) 1 of 15 What happened in A (no 2)? D was in a relationship with V for 3 weeks, + they had sex about a week before alleged **** on the way to hospital 2 of 15 A (no 2): does s.41 cover "relationship evidence"? Why/why not? No it doesn't cover this evidence - because issue is about whether V consented to specific act at specific time with specific D 3 of 15 A (no 2): does prima facie inadmissibility of "relationship evidence" violate art.6? No (no declaration of incompatibility) but attempt to find a compatible interpretation 4 of 15 A (no 2): could evidence of sex about 1 week before alleged **** be admitted? No 5 of 15 A (no 2): what did Lord Hope say about there being a possible infringement? Where previous sexual behaviour evidence was so relevant to matters of consent that excluding it would endanger safety of proceedings/fair trial 6 of 15 A (no 2): What did Lord Steyn say posed a slight proportionality issue? S.41 contains identical exclusionary provisions regarding V's sexual behaviour with D + other men 7 of 15 A (no 2): which judge said that evidence of a relationship between C + D will probably be relevant? Lord Hutton (because it reveals C's mindset towards D) 8 of 15 A (no 2): what is the key test of admissibility following this case? Is evidence so relevant to issue of consent that to exclude it would endanger fairness of trial under art.6? 9 of 15 Who said that the success of this provision was undermined by A (no 2)? Kelly, Temkin + Griffiths (legislation has been 'evaded, circumvented and resisted') 10 of 15 How do Kelly et al say A (no 2) has translated into practice? Indulgent approach taken by judges towards cross-examination of complainants, especially where C and D were in a relationship 11 of 15 What other 2 points do Kelly et al make regarding the success of the 1999 legislation? Conviction rates have continued to fall post-1999, sexual history still comes up r regularly in trials 12 of 15 In which case was A (no 2) applied and led to conclusion that D would be deprived of a fair trial (previous evidence relationship)? R 13 of 15 What happened in Harris (which led to evidence being inadmissible as it didn't fall under s.41(3)(c))? Alleged **** (V was drunk + took 2 men home with her, 1 was a homeless man charged with ****) + V's previous risky, casual sex with strangers 14 of 15 Which provision was held to have a role in all 3 exceptions in Hamadi? s.3 HRA 1998 15 of 15
Comments
No comments have yet been made