Law that will brand all men rapists...

The proposal, announced earlier this week by the Department of Justice, to allow alleged victims of rape to testify via pre- recorded video — without having to face cross-examination — is deeply worrying.

The theory is that by sparing alleged victims the ordeal of the courtroom, women will be protected from intimidation or cruel questioning — encouraging more victims to come forward.

That’s all very well, and I would never want to discourage women from seeking justice.

But rape is a uniquely heinous crime — which is why it must be tried with all the rigour the law has to muster. All the facts must be laid bare and examined forensically if the jury is to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. If the prosecution cannot cross-examine an alleged victim in person, how can they be expected to do this?

In english law, you are innocent until proven guilty. By allowing video testimony, you are introducing the presumption of guilt and placing the onus on the defence to prove innocence.

Because allowing a victim to present a pre-recorded testimony is bound to prejudice the jury. how could it not? The very fact that someone could be so psychologically traumatised as to be unable to attend court — and not only that, to be extended the same kinds of protections usually reserved for children — will inevitably lend an element of ‘no smoke without fire’ to the proceedings.

In the minds of the jurors, who are only human, the person allegedly responsible for this state of affairs will have the stench of guilt about him before a single shred of evidence has been presented.

Liz Truss — who rightly prides herself on being Britain’s first female Lord Chancellor — must know this.

So something tells me this is about more than helping victims of rape. There is an obvious political dimension to these proposed changes.

Firstly, I detect the whiff of cost-saving. Trial by video is likely to be a darn sight cheaper than the full silk.

More disturbing, however, is the suspicion that the department has been got at by hard-line feminist pressure groups, long- time advocates of softening the law for alleged victims. Their fingerprints are all over this one. And whether through a desire to please, or simply as a direct result of pressure, the Government has fallen straight into their trap.

It is actually contemplating re-writing english law to suit the agenda of a minority of swivel-eyed harpies who think that patting a woman on the bottom should earn you ten years’ hard labour.

I am under no illusion that the system as it stands is perfect. In the past women have been treated appallingly under cross-examination during rape trials.

BUT that is not the fault of the law per se. It is the fault of those who implement the law: of the antiquated judges who think that women in short skirts are ‘asking for it’, of defence barristers who overstep the boundaries.

All these problems need to be addressed and I would expect nothing less from Truss.

But all these new measures do is transfer the injustice from one side of the scales to another. Alleged victims of rape already enjoy anonymity, a right that is denied any man accused. Because of this, many innocent men — and every week it seems we hear of another case — have been branded monsters, their lives ruined.

If these proposals become reality, it will be open season. Worse still, they will enshrine in english law that old ultra-feminist line: that all men are rapists until proven otherwise.