This report presents the findings of the first qualitative study of the Irish rape shield: section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981. Section 3 restricts the defence’s ability to cross-examine the complainant in a sexual offences trial about his or her other sexual experiences beyond the events charged. Like all rape shields, section 3 aims to protect the jury’s fact finding process by filtering out arguments that smuggle in discredited rape myths. It targets the illogical inferences that (1) prior consent is indicative of later consent and (2) that prior sexual activity connotes weakened credibility. Both of these inferences are rooted in myths about what is a ‘real’ rape and who is a ‘legitimate’ rape victim. If defence counsel applies to have evidence of the complainant’s sexual experiences admitted, the judge must decide whether or not to grant the application. The judge must consider the arguments made by defence counsel about the evidence’s relevance to the issues in the trial, and any counter arguments made by the complainant’s legal representative or by prosecution counsel. The judge must also vindicate the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Centred on 21 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, this study provides groundbreaking findings about how section 3 operates in practice and the kinds of arguments made to judges about sexual experience evidence. A qualitative methodology was chosen for this exploratory study, using in-depth semi-structured interviews to achieve nuanced and rich perspectives on section 3. Participants’ answers, while subjective, were grounded in their considerable experience and expertise in this highly specialised context. Little is known about how Irish rape trials are run and what kinds of arguments are made in the cross examination of the complainant. By focussing on the rule governing the introduction of this controversial category of evidence, this study opens a window onto defence and prosecution narratives in rape trials.