Evidence of a sexual assault complainant's subsequent consensual sexual activity with another person does not have 'substantial relevance' under s 36BC of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) where no medical foundation has been laid to connect such activity to the complainant's injuries, and where the proposed relevance rests on stereotypical assumptions about expected behaviour of sexual assault victims. A firm judicial direction to disregard volunteered evidence of an accused's prior imprisonment will ordinarily be sufficient to cure prejudice where the disclosure is of limited relevance and the context of the trial diminishes its significance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.