MFA v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of MFA against a conviction for the offence of rape. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's sexual history, which the appellant argued was irrelevant and prejudicial. This raised questions about the proper application of the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence that might tend to suggest a person's bad character or predispose the tribunal of fact to make assumptions about their conduct.

McHugh and Gummow JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the relevant provisions of the *Uniform Evidence Law* and the common law principles governing the admission of character evidence. They affirmed that evidence of a complainant's sexual history is generally inadmissible unless it is relevant to a fact in issue and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. The Court found that the evidence in question was not relevant to any issue in the trial and that its admission had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.