Some of the most difficult problems in the law on sexual assault are evidentiary. In deciding disputed factual issues in sexual assault cases, challenging questions persist about what types of evidence are relevant and what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.

This paper advances that judges should take a broad view of relevance as an evidentiary approach in the adjudication of sexual assault cases. Professor Dufraimont argues that problematic inferences in sexual assault cases should be clearly identified as prohibited lines of reasoning, while allowing the defence to bring forward evidence that is logically relevant to the material issues so long as it does not raise prohibited inferences.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Kruk, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of this challenging topic in criminal evidence.

Click here to read the paper: