The prohibition of cross examination on previous sexual behaviour by s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 meant that in allegations of rape a defendant could not cross examine a complainant to show that a previous allegation of rape had been false. The defendants conviction was therefore safe.Appeal, with leave of the full court, against a conviction for rape at Doncaster Crown Court on 9 May 2002. The defendant ('L') was sentenced by HH Judge Keen QC to eight years imprisonment. The victim ('V') was a 17-year-old prostitute and heroin addict. The Crown's case was that on 6 December 2001 L had been in his car in a red-light district where he had met V. She agreed to have sex with him, got into his car and told him where to drive to. L drove to a different location and when V asked for payment he refused, then raped and hit her. L's case was that he had not known that V was a prostitute and that she had asked for money after they had had intercourse. V had made an earlier complaint of rape to police against a different man in the same location stating she had been taken there at his suggestion, however, that complaint had not proceeded to trial. At trial, for the present offence, L made an application to cross examine V on the earlier allegation to show that V had said she had been taken to exactly the same place by two different men. The judge held that L could cross examine V on the basis that she had been to the same place that L had taken her to. However, he held further that L could not question V as to the truth of the earlier rape allegation because cross examination on previous sexual behaviour was prohibited. L appealed his conviction on the ground that he should have been allowed to question V on the basis that her previous allegation of rape had been false.HELD: (1) S.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 would have prohibited L from asking V questions as to whether the previous allegation of rape had been false. (2) The application, to cross examine, had not been put in those terms. The point made was that both attackers had taken V to the same place which, was a coincidence too far and the judge allowed that point to be made. (3) The judge could not be criticised for refusing an application which had not been made and which would have been in breach of s.41 of the Act if allowed. (4) There had been no failure of justice and the conviction was safe.Appeal dismissed.