ABSTRACT
The question of relevance remains at the heart of ongoing debates about when and how sexual history evidence should be included at trial. This chapter presents the first findings of a mock jury dataset in England and Wales to assess how jurors understand and attribute relevance towards sexual history evidence within their deliberations. It reveals that whilst some jurors were able to outwardly attest that previous sexual history could not be held as synonymous with latter consent, largely problematic narratives endorsing to supposed ‘propensity to consent’ assertion remained routine. In particular, jurors frequently relied on stereotypical framings of heterosexual relationships to attach relevance to the sexual history and endorse the propensity assertion. This reliance on stereotypical perceptions of ‘normal’ relationships when discussing the previous sexual history ultimately often served to excuse the defendant and attach some level of the blame to the complainant, thereby illustrating the potentially distorting impact of sexual history evidence.
