TWO important legal changes in the treatment of rape victims in court, being announced today by Home Secretary Jack Straw, are long overdue.

The sexual history of rape victims will not be admitted in court, except in extreme circumstances, and their alleged attackers will not be able to cross-examine them.

The recent ordeal of a rape victim, who had to endure six days of cross examination by the man who was eventually convicted of her rape, was appalling.

Incidents like this no doubt explain why the number of rape convictions is down when the number of reported rape attacks is up.

Many women have withdrawn their complaints rather than face a new ordeal in the courtroom at the hands of their alleged attackers.

Some members of the legal profession have also been culpable when it comes to maltreatment of rape victims in court.

They have attempted to sully the women's reputations in their efforts to convince jury members that only women of ill repute can possibly figure in rape cases.

We agree that in extreme cases victims' previous sexual activity is central to the issue.

But at the moment defence barristers in 75 per cent of rape cases insist on a microscopic examination of the women's sexual habits.

Inevitably some lawyers will object to the to the abolition of the right of defendants to cross-examine their alleged victims, which the Criminal Bar Association has maintained is "fundamental."

It is not fundamental for defendants to cross-examine. It is fundamental for someone to cross-examine. That is one of the cornerstones of our legal system. But that someone should be a lawyer.

All too often rape victims have been forced to undergo mental torture because their attackers have pleaded not guilty and thereby gained a sick thrill by putting their victims through a further assault, this time verbal.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.