Admissibility of evidence — sexual violation by rape — admissibility of complainant's occupation — sex worker — admissibility of complainant's prior sexual history — Evidence Act 2006, ss 44 & 88. The defendant faced one charge of sexual violation by rape. It was alleged he had raped a sex worker at a parlour where she worked. Section 88 of the Evidence Act provides that in a sexual offending case the complainant's occupation cannot be disclosed in Court except with permission of the Judge. Section 88(2) provides that the Judge must not grant permission unless satisfied that the question to be put, the evidence to be given, or the statement or remark to be made, is of sufficient direct relevance to the facts and issue that to exclude it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The Judge found that threshold was clearly met in this case. The complainant's occupation was a central part of both the Crown and defence case. It was directly relevant to the facts and issue, and to exclude it would have been entirely artificial as well as contrary to the interests of justice. Section 44(1) prohibits evidence being given and questions being put to a witness relating directly or indirectly to the sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant except with the permission of the Judge. Section 44(2) is a blanket provision preventing evidence being given and questions being put to a witness that relate directly or indirectly to the reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. In this case, it was relevant that some evidence relating to the sexual experience of the complainant, as a sex worker with persons other than the defendant, was introduced. Mostly this was to centre around use of condoms at the parlour. The Judge decided that this evidence could be introduced at trial but cautioned counsel to seek the permission of the Judge in the absence of the jury if they were unsure about any proposed evidence or question. Finally, the Judge urged counsel to bear in mind the provision in s 44(2). It is a blanket prohibition, not subject to a Judge being able to grant permission. The provision prevents questions or evidence from impinging on the area of the reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. Judgment Date: 18 March 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *