R v Sutton (No 2)

The case of R v Sutton (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence concerning the prior sexual activities of the complainant. The defendant sought to introduce such evidence under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991. The court was tasked with determining whether this evidence was substantially relevant to the facts in issue and whether it was appropriate for cross-examination concerning the credibility of the complainant.

The central legal issue was whether the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual activities met the criteria for admissibility under the specified sections of the Act. The court had to assess the relevance and probative value of the evidence and whether it should be excluded due to potential prejudicial effects. The defendant argued that the evidence was necessary to challenge the credibility of the complainant, while the prosecution contended that it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

The court found that the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual activities was not substantially relevant to the facts in issue. It was deemed inadmissible because it did not meet the criteria set out in sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. The court ruled that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and thus should not be admitted. Furthermore, the court held that the matter of the complainant's credit was not a proper subject for cross-examination under these sections. The court emphasised the need to balance the probative value of the evidence against its potential to cause unfair prejudice to the complainant.

The final orders of the court were to exclude the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual activities from being presented in the trial. The court confirmed that the evidence did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility and would not be allowed as it was deemed irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. The trial proceeded without this evidence being presented to the jury.