In Australia, all states and mainland territories have rape shield laws that limit the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence.
[3] In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in R. v. Seaboyer which held that the prior rape shield law (enacted in 1982) was unconstitutional, because the restrictions placed on an accused's ability to lead evidence were too strict.
In 1992, Parliament amended the Criminal Code to re-establish the rape shield provision with strict guidelines for when and how previous sexual conduct could be used by a defendant at trial.
The ruling said forcing the accuser to give evidence would invade her privacy and would "discourage the reporting of crimes of sexual violence."
In his appeal, Darrach had argued that he had been denied a fair trial because he was unable to raise the fact that he mistakenly thought the incident was consensual.
Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 forbade indecent, scandalous, insulting, offensive and irrelevant questions during cross-examinations, even if they have some significance, to prevent attempts to harass and intimidate witnesses.
Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act was amended to include clear instructions not to refer to previous sexual history of the victim for determining the question of consent during cross-examinations.
In its March 2018 issues paper, it asked several questions about the operation of section 44, especially in light of two court cases:[12] Republic Act No.
Section 6 of RA 8505 provides that "evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation" shall not be admitted in prosecutions for rape.
[17] A recent news article, however, has accused defense attorneys of violating rape shield protections during a pre-trial proceeding.
[dubious – discuss] This practice was probably related to laws in some states which made it a crime to publicly reveal the name of the victim in a rape case.