Author

Gendered Credibility on Trial

Introduction

Gendered credibility on trial. Explores the gendered 'doctrine of recent complaint,' an evidence law impacting sexual assault survivors. Analyzes its history & how rape myths persist in Canadian courts.

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive historical account of the doctrine of recent complaint, an evidence law principle which expressly disadvantages sexual assault survivors if they do not disclose their assault at the first reasonable opportunity. Parliament did not abrogate this doctrine until 1983. Given that most sexual assault complainants are women, the gendered foundations of this doctrine (and its survival until the late 20th century) must be interrogated. Others have explored the doctrine’s abrogation, but this article’s original contributions include an analysis of primary sources that are largely unexamined by the literature (e.g., rape crisis centre reports, Parliamentary debates). This article shows that, despite considerable attempts from both Parliament and the SCC, many stereotypes and rape myths underpinning the doctrine of recent complaint are alive and well in Canadian courts. Most importantly, by providing a detailed overview of Parliamentary records leading up to 1983, this work highlights predictive concerns that were disregarded and have now come to fruition.

Review

The article, "Gendered Credibility on Trial," promises a critical and timely examination of the doctrine of recent complaint, an evidence law principle that historically and unjustly disadvantaged sexual assault survivors based on disclosure timing. The abstract outlines a comprehensive historical account of this doctrine, crucially interrogating its gendered foundations and remarkable persistence until its abrogation in 1983. This focus on the systemic biases within the legal framework is particularly relevant, establishing the article's importance in understanding the historical construction of credibility in sexual assault cases. A significant strength and original contribution highlighted is the article's intention to utilize largely unexamined primary sources, including rape crisis centre reports and Parliamentary debates. This promises to provide a rich, multi-faceted perspective on the doctrine's impact and the efforts leading to its legislative removal, moving beyond purely legalistic analyses. Crucially, the article aims to demonstrate that, despite legal abrogation, many stereotypes and rape myths that underpinned the doctrine of recent complaint remain "alive and well" in Canadian courts. This contemporary analysis, linked to historical "predictive concerns" from Parliamentary records that have "come to fruition," offers a powerful and unique critique of the enduring challenges in achieving justice. Overall, "Gendered Credibility on Trial" appears to be a profoundly valuable and impactful piece of scholarship. By meticulously detailing the historical trajectory of a biased legal doctrine and critically linking it to ongoing issues of credibility and entrenched rape myths in the judiciary, the article promises to illuminate the complex interplay between law, gender, and societal prejudice. This work will undoubtedly be essential reading for legal scholars, historians, gender studies experts, and practitioners invested in understanding and challenging the systemic barriers faced by sexual assault survivors in the Canadian legal system.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.