Cross-examination of complainant's sexual history — Evidence Act 2006, s 44 — inconsistent statements — admissibility. Counsel for the defendant made an application under s 44 of the Evidence Act for permission to question the complainant on her sexual experience with a person other than the defendant. This requires a Judge's permission. Permission is not granted unless the Judge is satisfied that the evidence or question is of such direct relevance to facts in issue that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it. The complainant had made statements about her sexual history in her evidential video that were inconsistent with statements she made to two police officers some months earlier. The statements were central to her claim that she was not having sexual relations with any man during the period of the alleged sexual offending. For that reason, the Judge granted permission for questions to be asked, although they were confined to that issue. Judgment Date: 13 March 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *