Halsbury's Law Exchange blogger Gary L Walters studies post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a rape trial
"As a legal academic with an interest in sexual offences, specifically consent in rape, I have witnessed many elements of a rape case from different perspectives. An issue that becomes evident in most, if not all, cases are jurors’ attitudes to a complainant while being questioned by defence or prosecution.
I am reminded that the purpose of any case is to test the evidence put before the court and that any complainant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is not likely to have it raised as an issue of a rape or attempted rape. In R v E (2011), PTSD was admitted only to rebut the presumption of fabrication. Rape does not require injury, Professor David Ormerod analysed R v Olugboja [1982] QB 320, [1981] 3 All ER 443 and concluded rape was an offence against consent, not one requiring proof of violence.
That in mind, questions, sometimes unpleasant ones, need to be asked. The defendant
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
