In the course of a summary hearing, committal proceeding or trial, the court must not grant leave under section 342 unless it is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to a fact in issue and that it is in the interests of justice to allow the cross-examination or to admit the evidence, having regard to—
(a) whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the distress, humiliation and embarrassment that the complainant may experience as a result of the cross-examination or the admission of the evidence, in view of the age of the complainant and the number and nature of the questions that the complainant is likely to be asked; and
(b) the risk that the evidence may arouse in the jury discriminatory belief or bias, prejudice, sympathy or hostility; and
(c) the need to respect the complainant's personal dignity and privacy; and
(d) the right of the accused to fully answer and defend the charge.
Section 352 limits the relevance of sexual history evidence.
New s. 350 inserted by No. 68/2009 s. 50, amended by No. 30/2010 s. 65 (ILA s. 39B(1)).