judgment in R v A (No 2)
E640905
House of Lords case
United Kingdom criminal law case
evidence law case
judicial decision
leading authority
rape law case
The judgment in R v A (No 2) is a leading House of Lords decision on the admissibility of a complainant’s sexual history evidence in rape trials and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on such evidential rules.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| judgment in R v A (No 2) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7077334 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: judgment in R v A (No 2) Context triple: [Lord Steyn, notableWork, judgment in R v A (No 2)]
-
A.
R v McIlkenny and others
R v McIlkenny and others is the criminal case in which the men later known as the Birmingham Six were controversially convicted in 1975 for the Birmingham pub bombings, convictions that were ultimately quashed in 1991.
-
B.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.
-
C.
R v Thorpe and Others (1979)
R v Thorpe and Others (1979) was the high-profile criminal trial in which former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe and co-defendants were prosecuted over an alleged conspiracy to murder Norman Scott.
-
D.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union is a leading UK constitutional law case on the limits of the royal prerogative and the executive’s duty to implement legislation enacted by Parliament.
-
E.
Guerin v. The Queen
Guerin v. The Queen is a landmark 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the federal government’s fiduciary duty toward Indigenous peoples in its management of reserve lands.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: judgment in R v A (No 2) Target entity description: The judgment in R v A (No 2) is a leading House of Lords decision on the admissibility of a complainant’s sexual history evidence in rape trials and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on such evidential rules.
-
A.
R v McIlkenny and others
R v McIlkenny and others is the criminal case in which the men later known as the Birmingham Six were controversially convicted in 1975 for the Birmingham pub bombings, convictions that were ultimately quashed in 1991.
-
B.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.
-
C.
R v Thorpe and Others (1979)
R v Thorpe and Others (1979) was the high-profile criminal trial in which former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe and co-defendants were prosecuted over an alleged conspiracy to murder Norman Scott.
-
D.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union is a leading UK constitutional law case on the limits of the royal prerogative and the executive’s duty to implement legislation enacted by Parliament.
-
E.
Guerin v. The Queen
Guerin v. The Queen is a landmark 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the federal government’s fiduciary duty toward Indigenous peoples in its management of reserve lands.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
House of Lords case
ⓘ
United Kingdom criminal law case ⓘ evidence law case ⓘ judicial decision ⓘ leading authority ⓘ rape law case ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs | R v A (No 2) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| appliesStatute |
Human Rights Act 1998
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| concernsAreaOfLaw |
criminal evidence
ⓘ
human rights law ⓘ rape law ⓘ statutory interpretation ⓘ |
| concernsProvision |
Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights NERFINISHED ⓘ Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights NERFINISHED ⓘ section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 ⓘ section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 ⓘ |
| country | United Kingdom ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw |
expanded judicial discretion to admit relevant sexual history evidence
ⓘ
strengthened use of section 3 HRA 1998 to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights ⓘ |
| hasCourt | House of Lords NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | England and Wales NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holds |
a declaration of incompatibility should be avoided if a conforming interpretation is possible
ⓘ
courts must interpret section 41 YJCEA 1999 compatibly with Article 6 ECHR where possible ⓘ evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual relationship with the defendant may be admissible where necessary for a fair trial ⓘ section 3 HRA 1998 requires strong interpretative obligations on courts ⓘ |
| involvesRight |
protection of victims of sexual offences
ⓘ
right to a fair trial ⓘ right to respect for private life ⓘ |
| isLeadingCaseOn |
fair trial rights in sexual offence prosecutions
ⓘ
rape shield provisions in English law ⓘ section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
admissibility of complainant’s sexual history evidence
ⓘ
compatibility of rape shield provisions with fair trial rights ⓘ interpretation of section 41 YJCEA 1999 under section 3 HRA 1998 ⓘ scope of judicial discretion to admit otherwise excluded evidence ⓘ |
| party |
A
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
R NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal prosecution
ⓘ
rape trial ⓘ |
| usedAsAuthorityIn |
later rape and sexual offence trials on evidential issues
ⓘ
subsequent UK human rights jurisprudence ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: judgment in R v A (No 2) Description of subject: The judgment in R v A (No 2) is a leading House of Lords decision on the admissibility of a complainant’s sexual history evidence in rape trials and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on such evidential rules.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.