R v EP

The appellant, a man referred to as EP, was convicted of sexually penetrating a woman without her consent and appealed against his conviction. The appellant sought to cross-examine the complainant about her sexual history, and the woman applied to the trial judge for an order preventing this. The trial judge found that the complainant had objectively reasonable grounds for considering the recordings to be necessary for the protection of her lawful interests and that they were not unlawfully obtained. The appellant sought leave to appeal against this decision. The complainant also applied to have a series of covert audio recordings of her telephone conversations with the appellant excluded from evidence on the basis that they were unlawfully obtained. The trial judge found that the recordings were not unlawfully obtained, and the complainant sought leave to appeal against this decision. The central issues for the court to decide were whether the trial judge was correct to order that the complainant could not be cross-examined on her sexual history and whether the trial judge was correct to find that the audio recordings were not unlawfully obtained. The court found that the complainant's sexual history was relevant to the issues in the trial and that the trial judge was correct to exclude this evidence on the basis that it was not relevant to the issues in the trial and was likely to cause the complainant unnecessary embarrassment. The court also found that the complainant had objectively reasonable grounds for considering the recordings to be necessary for the protection of her lawful interests and that they were not unlawfully obtained. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The complainant's application for leave to appeal was also dismissed. The court found that the trial judge was correct to exclude the evidence of the complainant's sexual history and to admit the recordings as evidence. The appellant's conviction was upheld.