The second day of this Crown Court rape trial plunges straight back into cross-examination. The defence sets out to problematise, not the complainant’s credibility, but her reliability—dealing with the evidential difficulties posed by her level of intoxication, memory fragmentation, confabulation and contamination.

We see how defence advocacy works in practice: how these issues are probed, how ‘false memories’ are argued, how evidence like CCTV footage and cell-site data does not speak for itself, and the inferences juries may be asked to draw in cases where a complainant can’t remember.

This episode examines the messy and emotive reality of rape trials and the sometimes uncomfortable tension between fairness to the accused and compassion for the complainant.

**Listener discretion is advised**

The broader research underpinning this season of Criminal Justice in Action is reported in our book, Doak et al, Cross-examination on Trial: Advocacy and Vulnerability in Criminal Trials (BUP 2025).  The book examines cross-examination across the UK and Ireland drawing on trial observations, practitioner interviews, and a linguistic analysis of courtroom exchanges in light of recent reforms.

https://amzn.to/49oVqG2

This is an Amazon affiliate link, which means I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. 

If you or someone you know has been affected by any of the issues raised in this episode, please visit our website https://criminaljusticeinaction.com for information about help and support.

Music: Hopeless Waltz by Alena Smirnova.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.