header-logo header-logo

Stricter safeguards for sexual offences evidence

23 July 2025
Issue: 8126 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Abuse , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Stereotypes, myths and misunderstandings about consent continue to permeate the criminal justice system in rape and sexual offences cases, the Law Commission has said

It sets out a series of proposed reforms this week to help protect complainants while maintaining a fair trial, in a landmark report, ‘Evidence in sexual offences prosecutions’. The report, its final recommendations to the government, builds on responses to its 2023 consultation paper of the same name.

Under its proposals, judges would be required to consider the complainant’s rights and the risks associated with certain evidence when deciding whether to allow it in court. There would be an enhanced relevance threshold for a complainant’s personal records, including counsellor records—it must be likely to be relevant to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify, and access must be necessary in the interests of justice. The judge would be assisted by a code of practice and guidance.

Evidence of the complainant’s sexual behaviour would be prohibited unless it has ‘substantial probative value’ relating to a matter which is of ‘substantial importance’ in the context of the case as a whole, and admission would not ‘significantly prejudice’ the administration of justice. The judge would be required to consider factors such as the risk of relying on myths and misconceptions regarding the complainant’s credibility, consent and moral worth or of subjecting the complainant to humiliating questioning.

The Law Commission would also give complainants a right to be heard, assisted by independent legal advice and representation, when asked to produce personal records or sexual behaviour evidence, and they would be entitled to pre-record evidence or be shielded by a screen in court. It would introduce mandatory training for legal practitioners on rape myths and professional misconduct consequences, and guidance for judges on the use of rape myths in cases.

Finally, it recommends creating specialist courts for serious sexual offences trials, with juries continuing to be used.

Criminal Law Commissioner Professor Penney Lewis said: ‘Our package of reforms aims to increase understanding of consent and sexual harm and to address the myths that can undermine justice in these cases.’

Issue: 8126 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Abuse , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll