There has been much criticism of a perceived practice of defence lawyers cross examining a victim on his or her past sexual history with a view to suggesting the alleged victim must have consented to sex with the accused, because of that past history. The current position is that an alleged victim of a rape cannot be asked questions about his or her sexual reputation or sexual activities. There is an exception in that cross examination of the alleged victim regarding recent sexual activities with the accused is permitted.

In certain circumstances, the trial judge may give permission for cross examination concerning the alleged victim's sexual activities with people other than the accused. In deciding whether to give permission for such a questioning, the trial judge must bear in mind that alleged victims should not be subjected to unnecessary humiliation, distress or embarrassment [Evidence Act 1929 s.34I(2)]. The trial judge must also consider whether the evidence that might be elicited in such cross examination is relevant to the issues at trial and also whether it might have the effect of impairing the credibility of the alleged victim. An example of admitting evidence under this section may be a woman having sexual intercourse with several men at a party. At a certain point, she calls a halt. A man has intercourse with her after she has decided she wants no further sexual activity. She alleges that he raped her. His defence is that she consented. In such circumstances cross examination of the alleged victim's activities with the other men (other than the accused) might be allowed.

Corroboration is confirmation (or backing up) of an aspect of a witness's evidence by other independent evidence. In a trial for sexual assault it could be the findings of a doctor who examines the victim, torn or stained clothes worn by the victim, or the evidence of an eye-witness.

In the past a judge had to tell a jury that it was unsafe to convict a person based on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim (Kelleher v The Queen (1974) 41 CLR 534). A judge is no longer required to issue this warning [Evidence Act 1929 s.34I(5)] but in appropriate cases judges still do.

Broadly speaking, the law of evidence does not permit a witness to describe statements made by other people if that evidence is meant to show that what that other person said was true. An exception to this rule is that a witness is able, in certain circumstances, to give evidence of what an alleged victim said very soon after an alleged sexual attack. This is known as evidence of 'recent complaint'. However, a jury can only ever use it as proof of the fact that a complaint had been made and not as truth of what the words of complaint actually described.

Evidentiary issues relevant in child sexual assault matters are covered separately.