R v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) [2002] 1 AC 45
Court: House of Lords (HOL)
Facts: The defendant (D) was charged with rape and claimed that the sexual encounter was consensual. He sought leave under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to adduce evidence and ask questions related to the complainant's (C) alleged consensual sexual history. D argued that Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the court to interpret Section 41 in a manner consistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). If such an interpretation was not possible, he asserted that a declaration of incompatibility must be issued. Issue: Would the exclusion of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual history under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 contravene D’s right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act and Article 6 of the ECHR?
Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 41 of the 1999 Act should be interpreted with regard to the obligation under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. The Court emphasized the need to protect the complainant from indignity and the potential for humiliating questioning. They concluded that a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act is a measure of last resort that should be avoided unless a compatible interpretation is impossible due to express words that restrict convention rights.
Key Judicial Statements: The House of Lords noted that a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act is a last resort, emphasizing the need to protect complainants from humiliating questioning.
💡 LevelUpLaw: This case illustrates the balance that courts must strike between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the rights of complainants in sexual offense cases. It highlights the importance of interpreting legislation in a manner that protects vulnerable witnesses while respecting defendants' rights, reinforcing the principle that legislative measures should be construed to avoid incompatibility with human rights obligations whenever possible.