Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their testimonies. My questions are mainly for Mr. Hayes and Ms Murphy and relate to sexual history. The O'Malley report states that the working group takes the view that the terms of the current application strike a fair balance between protecting the rights of accused persons and those of victims in sexual offence trials and it does not recommend any change to this section. I struggle to understand parts of that. When I look closer, the onus appears to be solely on the judge to decide whether an application to question a victim on his or her previous sexual history is approved. We know from statistics that it is a common practice, with figures estimating that up to two-thirds of trials involve sexual history evidence being admitted. Do we have detailed guidance as to when relevant evidence should be admitted? How do the judges in those cases determine what is and is not important or what is admitted? Does the judge have to provide some sort of summary or insight as to how and why he came to the decision that evidence relating to sexual history is permissible? Whatever about Senator Ward being conflicted as a member of the Bar, I am conflicted as a woman who has been raped.

The idea of sexual history, which is something I would have to contend with, is something that would keep me out of the court room. I wonder if this is one of the biggest issues, yet the Review of Protections for Vulnerable Witnesses in the Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Offences, the O’Malley report, does not recommend any change in this. I am not looking for an outright ban as I understand the logic of the application of reasonable doubt and everything needed by that, but is there something that the O’Malley report could have recommended in order to ensure there is more accountability and transparency in how evidence is permissible and how these decisions are made with regard to previous sexual history?