Admissibility of evidence — rape — expert evidence — heightened relevance test — previous complaints by complainant — sleep paralysis — flashback — Evidence Act 2006, ss 9, 25 & 44. This was a pretrial matter in a rape charge. The complainant had previously made an allegation that an ex-partner had sexually violated her while she was asleep. This allegation was relevant to the current proceedings because the complainant suffered from sleep paralysis, which in some cases can involve hallucinations about being assaulted or squashed by an intruder. After the alleged rape, the complainant had commented to others that she did not at first realise what had happened and thought that she was just drunk and having a flashback to the sexual violation by her ex-partner. This meant that the defendant had to be allowed to question the complainant on the possibility that the alleged rape was in fact a hallucination. The Crown agreed that this type of evidence was admissible, but the parties were unable to agree on the exact number and nature of questions to be asked of the complainant at trial. The Court provided a list of questions that the defendant could ask, that would allow the defendant to put his case and also comply with s 44 of the Evidence Act (relating to evidence of sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases). The Court also ruled that a statement in the proposed evidence of a defence expert witness, that one study had shown that sleep paralysis can lead to false rape complaints, was not helpful and should be omitted from the evidence. Judgment Date: 14 May 2020.