The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Scotland’s rape shield laws has sparked fears of appeals and delays, raising difficult questions about how to balance the rights of complainers with those of the accused in sexual offence trials, says Herald columnist Dani Garvelli.

When I first heard rumblings of discontent amongst Scotland’s defence lawyers about the way laws to protect rape complainers were being applied, I was sceptical. After all, I had sat through sexual offences trials with my jaw on the floor at the way the women at the centre of them were being cross-examined.

I had read how Ellie Wilson, who was raped by her student boyfriend, was mistreated by defence advocate Lorenzo Alonzi as recently as 2022. Last year, a Faculty of Advocates committee found Alonzi guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in six out of 11 complaints Ms Wilson made against him. One of the strategies he used to discredit her was to ask her if she suffered from narcissistic personality disorder despite there being no diagnosis to this effect. Ms Wilson said she felt “shamed”. Alonzi did not apologise.

I had also interviewed Miss M, who told me she was traumatised by the way the defence advocate in the trial of the man she accused of raping her had “played to the jury,” as he repeatedly accused her of lying.

Read more:

These experiences, together with evidence on the impact of rape “myths” — for example, the idea that a woman in a short skirt is “asking for it” — made me wonder: could the pendulum really have swung too far? Was it plausible that laws drawn up to prevent the humiliation of complainers were now impinging on the accused’s rights to a fair trial?

But I also have a long-standing interest in miscarriage of justice cases. And the more I spoke to Thomas Ross KC, who was leading the backlash, the more open I became to the possibility that something was awry.

To........

© Herald Scotland