ABSTRACT
This chapter describes the pervasiveness of myths in both Australia and England and Wales that limit the efficacy of what could have been excellent reform. It explains that the mindset as described by Carol Smart contributes to a persistent focus on complainant credibility and victim provocation in cross-examination, despite rape shield laws and provisions intended to prevent improper questions. The mythology permeates through the lattice-like indeterminacy of the statutes, for example in how the terms 'vulnerable' and 'improper' are interpreted. In Australia, the uniform evidence legislation makes it mandatory before discretionary for judges to intervene in improper questioning. In England and Wales, concerns regarding the conviction rate prompted many of the substantive and procedural reforms to the law of rape. One of the limits on the evidence the defence may adduce has been its relevance. A Victorian report concluded that 'for many, but not all, victims of sexual assault their experience of the criminal justice system is vastly improved'.
