The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is an exasperated woman, writes Stephen Glover

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is an exasperated woman. The number of reported ‘date-rapes’ is rising but juries remain unwilling to convict except in a small minority of cases.

A couple of years ago, Mrs Saunders introduced guidelines which meant that a man accused of date-rape —which comprise a high, though unknown, proportion of all rape cases — would have to convince police that a woman had consented to sex.

Now the DPP has upped the ante again. In a newspaper interview, she has suggested that where allegations are made in the context of a relationship, prosecutors can focus on male defendants’ previous sexual conduct. Texts, emails, social media and CCTV might be adduced as evidence.

In other words, if Mrs Saunders has her way, the entire sexual history of a male defendant could be paraded in court in order to persuade a jury he is the sort of man who committed the heinous crime of rape.

Of course, I am wholly in favour of any reasonable measure which would lead to more rapists being convicted. But I fear that what Mrs Saunders proposes is an offence against natural justice and our legal traditions.

Just imagine the uproar there would be if she or anyone else had suggested that the sexual history of an alleged rape victim be examined in detail by a defence lawyer. Enraged feminists would rightly call foul.

Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 does not allow the sexual history of a female rape complainant to be used in order to suggest she might be of loose morals, promiscuous or generally untrustworthy.

All that is permitted on rare occasions is the citing of a complainant’s sexual behaviour that was close in time to the alleged offence and so similar that it cannot be explained by pure coincidence.

This is what happened last year in the retrial of footballer Ched Evans, who had been jailed after being convicted of raping a young woman during a drunken night out. His lawyers successfully argued the complainant’s sexual behaviour with two other men at about the same time was so similar to what had allegedly taken place with Evans that it should be given in evidence.

Even so, more than 40 female Labour MPs wrote to the Attorney General claiming a legal precedent had been set. They believed that as a result of the Evans case (he was acquitted on retrial), women’s sexual history in rape cases would now be considered fair game. This was a mistaken interpretation: such questioning of a victim is still only permitted in very few cases.

Footballer Ched Evans, was jailed after being convicted of raping a young woman during a drunken night out. He was later acquitted after a retrial

What Mrs Saunders is now proposing is already being criticised by some in the legal profession, and would in all probability be struck down by the Appeal Court if she tried to go ahead with her plans.

That does not alter the fact that in order to increase the rate of convictions, she is prepared to jettison established principles of justice. It can’t be right to trawl through every aspect of a defendant’s sexual past in order to discredit him any more than it would be right to employ the same methods with a female complainant.

The DPP is in danger of stacking the cards against men. Some would say they are already stacked, given that the complainant in a rape case remains anonymous even if her allegations are shown to be false. Meanwhile, defendants who are proved innocent and have already been named can do nothing to undo the damage to their reputations.

The usual justification for this apparent inequity is that fewer rape victims would come forward if they knew they were going to be identified. It’s undoubtedly true, and therefore difficult to argue against the existing state of affairs.

But Alison Saunders’ draconian approach must be resisted. I submit she is driven more by an ultra-feminist agenda than any balanced sense of justice. She simply wants a higher rate of conviction in date-rape cases, and seemingly isn’t over-concerned how her objective is achieved.

Wouldn’t she accomplish much more if she listened to experienced judges who have expressed reasonable concerns about the role which excessive drink — and sometimes inappropriate dress — can play in these tragic cases?

This year, in her final case, Judge Lindsey Kushner sentenced a 19-year-old man for six years for the rape of an 18-year-old woman, who had been drunk. The judge observed that women potentially put themselves at risk by drinking vast amounts in public places.

Judge Lindsey Kushner (pictured, with her daughter Tamara) observed that women potentially put themselves at risk of attack by drinking vast amounts in public places

Note that the rapist was jailed. The judge was not remotely suggesting that his victim deserved being raped. She was simply pointing out the obvious truth that being hopelessly inebriated makes a woman more vulnerable.

For one thing, the rapist suspects she will be less able to resist his attack. For another, he may calculate that a jury is less likely to sympathise with a victim if she was wildly drunk.

Judge Kushner caused a predictable furore among outraged feminists who shoot first and ask questions later, though the rape victim in the case later praised her. Vera Baird, a former Labour MP and now a police commissioner, absurdly accused the judge of ‘victim blaming’.

Her Honour Judge Kushner’s comments echo those of a now-retired judge, Mary Jane Mowat, in 2014. She said she had noticed a rise in the number of ‘night-out’ rape allegations after the relaxation of alcohol licensing laws, and suggested that juries were reluctant to rely on evidence from rape complainants who had been too drunk to remember the attack clearly.

A similar point was made earlier this year by Judge Philip Shorrock, who reflected that many rape allegations involved men and women who had been drinking or taking drugs. He added that defendants in such cases were ‘usually and unsurprisingly acquitted by juries’.

Alison Saunders is driven more by an ultra-feminist agenda than any balanced sense of justice, writes Stephen Glover

Alison Saunders was appalled on reading His Honour Judge Shorrock’s comments, claiming they harked back to the ‘victim blaming’ culture and ‘discredited rape myths’ of the past.

Last month, the poor man was slapped down by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for ‘commenting publicly on a politically sensitive issue without seeking guidance from the relevant leadership judge’. His behaviour — so it was ridiculously asserted — amounted to ‘misconduct’.

That sounds rather sinister to me. A judge of huge experience gives vent to what sounds like sensible and humane advice — even if it is anathema to the hidebound DPP — and is humiliated by the authorities.

How often does one have to repeat the point? Being madly drunk, or wearing very few clothes, does not, in the smallest degree, legitimise rape, or remove one iota of guilt from the perpetrator.

It is simply unwise for all the reasons I have mentioned — not least of which is that it introduces doubt in the minds of juries as to what really happened, and what can be accurately remembered.

The DPP has two sons. If she had a 17-year-old daughter wouldn’t she advise her not to drink herself out of her mind if she went out to a club, and to wear a skirt that at least covered her knickers?

Perhaps not. That is the madness of this debate about what is a despicable crime. Too much of the discussion is dominated by feminist ideologues such as Alison Saunders, who would prefer to load the scales of justice rather than face up to a little common-sense.