RR v The Queen

The case of *RR v The Queen* concerned an appeal by the applicant, RR, against a conviction for sexual offences. The appeal was heard by Crennan and Bell JJ of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior sexual history. Specifically, the Court had to consider the application of s 102 of the *Uniform Evidence Law* (Victoria), which governs the admissibility of evidence of a person's sexual reputation or past sexual behaviour in sexual offence proceedings. The applicant argued that the evidence was improperly admitted as it did not fall within any of the exceptions to the general prohibition on such evidence.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of s 102 and its exceptions. Crennan and Bell JJ analysed the purpose of the provision, which is to prevent prejudice to an accused by preventing the jury from being influenced by irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial information about their past sexual conduct. They considered whether the evidence in question met the criteria for admissibility under the exceptions, which typically require the evidence to be relevant to a fact in issue in the proceeding, or to be evidence of the complainant's sexual behaviour that is not unfairly prejudicial. The Court ultimately found that the evidence of prior sexual history was not admissible under any of the exceptions to s 102.

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