no evidence, sexual or otherwise, is ever admissible in a courtroom unless it is relevant and of ‘evidential value’, and sexual history evidence is only admissible where not admitting it might lead to the jury reaching an unsafe conclusion. Secondly, more egregiously, the entire purpose of the legislation Ms Harman was trying to change was to eliminate from courts the very ‘notion’ that she attacks. If it appears to a judge that the defence are applying to rely on sexual history evidence to attack a complainant’s credibility – for example to evoke the myth that ‘unchaste women’ are less worthy
...more
