KEY POINTS:
Women will no longer be able to be grilled about their sexual reputation in court cases involving sex attacks, if unanimous proposals made by a parliamentary committee become law.
But there appears to be dispute about how significant a step it would be, with some saying it's a major change and others saying it would represent what is in fact current practice.
The National Collective of the Women's Refuge and the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation said yesterday such questioning was a big problem, as did several Labour MPs on the select committee.
But Criminal Bar Association President Peter Winter said judges were already very reluctant to hear evidence on a woman's sexual reputation.
"So I don't think it alters the existing law in practice," he said.
His view was echoed by the select committee's deputy chairman and National MP Chris Finlayson.
The issue was raised by a number of women's groups during the Louise Nicholas trial, in which several former policemen were acquitted of her rape.
Judges now have the power to determine whether evidence and questions about a complainant's sexual history and reputation can be heard in court.
In its report on the Evidence Bill, the justice and electoral committee recommended a blanket ban on any debate about a woman's sexual reputation in cases involving sexual assault.
The bill draws together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme.
Dumping spousal immunity, which enables spouses to avoid giving evidence against a partner, is another recommendation made by the committee.
Committee chairwoman Lynne Pillay said the plan to eradicate sexual reputation questions was an important step, as did fellow Labour MP Russell Fairbrother, who chaired the sub-committee that examined the technical detail for the committee.
Mr Fairbrother, a former defence lawyer, said: "I think reputation arises frequently in sex cases, indirectly if not directly."
Judges of varying degrees of experience tended to apply the law differently.
"I know as a defence lawyer you put your client in a virtuous light and the complainant in a non-virtuous light and juries tend to be looking for that sort of lead as well.
"Often indirectly, you ask questions which suggest the girl is a bit of a sleazebag ... we're trying to put a stop to that kind of thing."
Refuge general manager Heather Henare welcomed the proposed change, saying women who ended up in refuge had often been raped or sexually abused but didn't want to report it for fear their past history or reputation would be dredged up.
Women in relationships who might have slept with someone else and prostitutes were particularly reluctant, believing the law would not protect them and they would be further victimised by the process, she said.
Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation clinical manager Katheryn McPhillips said the change would be a "small step in the right direction".
However, she said there was a fine line between asking questions about sexual reputation and sexual history and the latter should also be banned if women were to escape being unfairly treated by the process.
Otherwise an advocate should be appointed to represent the victim when the judge was considering whether the evidence was admissible.
With greater use of DNA evidence the defence in sexual assault cases was increasingly trying to prove the sex was consensual, which meant the issue was becoming more - not less - relevant, she said.
