Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the bar

Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 219-248

  Temkin, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042780996     PISSN: 0263323X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6478.00152     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. See, for example, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape (1975; Cmnd. 6352; chair, Mrs Justice Heilbron).
2. See Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, s. 2; Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 32.
3. See Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, s. 2; Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 32.
4. See, for example, S. Lees, Carnal Knowledge (1996) 125-6.
5. Brown et al considered the attitudes of barristers to the use of sexual history evidence in Scottish rape trials. See B. Brown et al., Sexual History and Sexual Character Evidence in Scottish Rape Trials (Scottish Office Central Research Unit, 1992) 15-16. Five barristers and five judges were interviewed in Home Office, A Question of Evidence? Investigating and Prosecuting Rape in the 1990s (Home Office Study 196, 1999) see at 3.
6. Brown et al considered the attitudes of barristers to the use of sexual history evidence in Scottish rape trials. See B. Brown et al., Sexual History and Sexual Character Evidence in Scottish Rape Trials (Scottish Office Central Research Unit, 1992) 15-16. Five barristers and five judges were interviewed in Home Office, A Question of Evidence? Investigating and Prosecuting Rape in the 1990s (Home Office Study 196, 1999) see at 3.