Do you agree with the s 409B approach or not? What are your reasons for your view?

ISSUE 2 (Page 22)

Does s 409B raise any other problems of interpretation and, if so, how have they been resolved?

ISSUE 3 (Page 24)

Do you think that s 409B has successfully implemented the policy underlying the legislation?

ISSUE 4 (Page 25)

Do you know of any cases in which consent (or belief in consent) was the issue where s 409B successfully achieved its policy goals?

ISSUE 5 (Page 26)

Do you know of any cases in which consent (or belief in consent) was the issue where s 409B resulted in injustice?

ISSUE 6 (Page 27)

Do you know of any cases in which intercourse was denied where s 409B successfully achieved its policy goals?

ISSUE 7 (Page 27)

Do you know of any cases in which intercourse was denied where s 409B resulted in injustice?

ISSUE 8 (Page 32)

Should the s 409B approach be retained, that is, should evidence of a complainant’s sexual experience be inadmissible in a sexual assault case unless it fits into specific categories? Why or why not?

ISSUE 9 (Page 32)

Should s 409B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) be retained and amended to overcome specific problems identified by critics? If not, why not? If so, how should it be amended?

ISSUE 10 (Page 32)

Should the exceptions to the prohibition on sexual experience evidence in s 409B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) be reformulated? If so, what should the exceptions be?

ISSUE 11 (Page 35)

Should s 409B(3) be replaced by a provision that makes sexual experience evidence inadmissible but gives the trial judge a discretion to admit it? Why or why not?

ISSUE 12 (Page 35)

If s 409B(3) is replaced by a discretionary provision, what limitations should be placed on the exercise of the discretion? In what circumstances should the judge be able to admit sexual experience evidence?

ISSUE 13 (Pages 36-37)

Should the admissibility of evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience in sexual assault proceedings be governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and not by specific legislation?

If so, should the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) be amended to add the rider that, in deciding whether or not to admit evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience in sexual assault proceedings, the trial judge would be obliged to consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment the complainant might suffer if it is admitted?

ISSUE 14 (Page 39)

There should continue to be an absolute ban on the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation. Do you agree? If so, why? If not, why not?