There is a golden thread that runs through English criminal law.

Set out in a famous case in 1935, it states: ‘The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’

In other words, it’s the Crown’s duty to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

Former criminal barrister Laura Perrins at her home in south London

However, this principle has been eroded by recent Tory and Labour governments which have changed the way court cases are conducted.

The latest attack is the suggestion that in rape trials the alleged victim should be able to give ‘recorded cross-examination’ that is played to the court.

This is wrong. It is nothing less than political interference in the justice system.

Of course, victims of rape have already been through one horrific ordeal from their attacker and it is vital they don’t suffer again during the trial. It is certainly true that some defence barristers have been known to treat them harshly during cross-examination, and, for example, question them about their sexual history.

But the fact is that stopping the live cross-examination of an accuser’s evidence in front of a jury would deprive the accused of a key element of a fair trial.

Campaigners for this change in procedure cite the awful case of Ceri Linden, 20, who killed herself in 2014 after being raped on a night out. She took an overdose of pills rather than facing the ordeal of giving evidence in court.

The reform lobby argues too many victims are being humiliated and degraded through the confrontational court process.

But equally, there are agonising pressures for the wrongly accused – and I am worried that if live cross-examinations in court are longer allowed, we could, wrongly, see more convictions.

Indeed, in recent weeks, there have been several high-profile cases where accused rapists have been cleared. For example, it took a jury just two hours to acquit a 24-year-old York graduate. Who knows if the same decision would have been made were the proposed changes already in operation.

Recent changes in the way criminal trials are heard – particularly those involving sexual offences – have been partly motivated by the admirable desire to make the judicial system fairer and less intimidatory.

The latest attack is the suggestion that in rape trials the alleged victim should be able to give ‘recorded cross-examination’ that is played to the court.

But they are also the result of the modern trend for feminising justice. Amid concerns that the rate of rape convictions has gone down, such changes have been introduced to help women victims of crime.

But we must never forget that court cases affect both complainant and defendant. Rape is not a private dispute between two people. In court, the state (through a prosecuting barrister), not the victim, is challenging the accused.

Rape is a crime against society – and the trial of such a serious offence should take place openly within that society.

In English law, the accused has a right to challenge the evidence that has been laid against them before a jury of their peers. This element is as sacrosanct a safeguard as the presumption of innocence and proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In fact, jury trial was a crucial part of Magna Carta and trial by your peers has been a limit on state power for more than 800 years – in other words, the state cannot impose heavy criminal punishment without their consent.

And, as a lawyer, having sat through trials of sexual crimes, I know it’s crucial to hear contemporaneous evidence, not a pre-recorded version.

Cross-examination is an exercise in testing the evidence – that’s what distinguishes it from a show trial.

But the proposed change would remove this vital, ancient element of criminal trial.

I am not convinced that a jury would appreciate the seriousness of their task as much if they were presented with evidence on tape.

I fear they would not pick up the same nuances of facial expression and timbre of voice that are key to someone’s character.

True, alleged victims are currently able to give evidence live in court by video link, so they are spared from facing the accused in the court room.

This is vital when children are involved. Also, wisely, defendants are prohibited from cross-examining complainants themselves; it has to be done by a lawyer.

And complainants in sexual offence cases remain anonymous, even if the verdict is ‘not guilty’.

Justice Secretary Liz Truss announced yesterday that rape victims will no longer face cross-examination in court

The fact is that rape is the most grievous crime after murder. A person convicted faces a maximum life sentence, will be barred – rightly – from all sorts of professions and will remain on the sex offenders’ register for life.

So, in consideration of this, there must be safeguards for defendants, too, to stop wrongful convictions.

Traumatic as it is for a complainant to be cross-examined, it is extremely traumatic, also, to be wrongly accused of rape: to go through the trial, and have your name dragged through the courts.

Yes, rape and other sexual offences are heinous crimes. But that does not mean that trials involving such allegations should be tampered with excessively, that there should be a different yardstick for evidence and the procedure should be less rigorous.

England’s judicial system is not designed to be loaded in favour of the victim. It has been carefully balanced over centuries to be deliver justice fairly: bringing the guilty to account and protecting innocent people from wrongful convictions.