“House of Lords uses Human Rights Act to reinterpret rape shield law”
The defendant was charged with rape of his estranged wife. He wished to adduce evidence of previous consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant to support his defence of consent. Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 prohibited such evidence except in very limited circumstances.
Whether section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was compatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial), and if not, how the courts should respond under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 41 was incompatible with Article 6 ECHR as drafted, but could be read compatibly using section 3 HRA 1998 to allow evidence of sexual history where exclusion would render the trial unfair.
Established the broad interpretive power of section 3 HRA 1998 and demonstrated how human rights could reshape statutory interpretation. Set important precedent for balancing protection of vulnerable witnesses against defendants' fair trial rights.
You're reading the free summary of R v A (No 2). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25, [2002] 1 AC 45
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.