It is now well recognised that victims of sexual offences may recount events differently at different times and to different audiences and that variations, gaps or ‘inconsistencies’ are not necessarily indicative of lying or unreliability. Incorporating this knowledge into the criminal trial now forms part of the wider reform agenda in a number of jurisdictions, including via recommended jury directions. This is now expressly reflected in provisions like s 54D of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) – introduced in 2017 – which provides for an educative direction on how the jury should (and should not) consider differences in the complainant's account. Drawing on rare access to sexual offence trial transcripts, this article reports on the findings of an analysis of 33 rape trials finalised in the County Court of Victoria between 2013 and 2020. We found that complainants were still regularly cross-examined, and the quality of their evidence challenged, on the basis of differences in their accounts. We found little evidence that the availability of a jury direction has shifted the defence practice of evoking the ‘lying complainant’ by pointing to ‘inconsistences’ in their evidence.

现在公认的是，性犯罪的受害人可能会在不同的时间向不同的听众讲述不同的事件，而且变化、差距或“不一致”并不一定表示说谎或不可靠。将这些知识纳入刑事审判现在已成为许多司法管辖区更广泛改革议程的一部分，包括通过推荐的陪审团指示。这一点现在明确反映在2015 年《陪审团指示法》第 54D 条等条款中(Vic) – 于 2017 年推出 – 为陪审团应该（和不应该）考虑申诉人陈述中的差异提供了教育指导。本文利用对性犯罪审判记录的罕见访问，报告了对 2013 年至 2020 年间在维多利亚郡法院完成的 33 起强奸审判的分析结果。他们的证据因他们的说法不同而受到质疑。我们发现几乎没有证据表明陪审团指示的可用性改变了通过指出证据中的“不一致”来唤起“说谎的原告”的辩护做法。