A spokeswoman for the campaign group Women Against Rape added: “This sets a dangerous precedent to allow irrelevant sexual history evidence, which the law was supposed to prevent, opening the floodgates to trashing the woman’s character in any rape trial once again.
“This trial is a throwback to the last century when women who reported rape were assumed to be lying and their sex life was on trial – just a piece of meat, to be done sex to by any man under any circumstance.”
I’ve not seen it clearly stated but the impression I’m getting is that the question before the court was along these lines:
“Is this the sort of bird who will get boozed up and then have a threesome with a couple of blokes she’s just met?”
If not then the presumption is going to be rape, if so, then not.
Seems that it’s really pretty relevant to that question as to whether she’s the sort of bird who gets boozed up and …..