ABSTRACT
By way of exception to the rule that prior consistent statements of a witness are inadmissible in examination-in-chief as evidence of consistency, the law has always permitted the complainant in sexual cases to give evidence that she reported the rape immediately after it took place. This exception owes its origins to medieval times, when an appeal of rape required the woman to have raised the hue and cry in the neighbouring towns and to have exhibited her injuries and clothing.59 A failure to do so nullified the appeal. But, even as late as 1896,60 there was still a ‘strong presumption’ that rape complainants who had failed to make an immediate complaint were lying. The trend in 20th century cases has been towards an expansion of the recent complaint exception to cover sexual offences in general and to permit some latitude in the construction of promptness.
