Rape is a disgusting and appalling violation of a victim's body and mind but the crime is wildly misunderstood by many commentators.

Lynn Daly (The Argus, January 13) seems, like many people, to be unaware of the current state of the law relating to rape.

She is right when she says in her article many rapes are never reported but fails to appreciate the unique nature of the offence. More often than not, the issue of whether a person has been raped boils down to the word of one person against another.

In a justice system that insists on a high standard of proof, it is inevitable juries will give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

There can be few more traumatic experiences for a parent than to be told your son or daughter has been raped. Is it not equally frightening to discover your son has been accused of rape? What if he were innocent?

In the case of a violent and sinister stalker who assaults and rapes his victim, the issues are relatively straightforward. Was it him or not? However, in an incident where it is claimed by the accused there had been consensual sexual activity, they are less clear.

Ms Daly adds to the confusion by suggesting a defendant can cross-examine a complainant and that his or her sexual history will be aired. This is wrong on both counts.

Since September 2000, defendants have been disallowed from questioning victims of sexual offences in person. The change came as a result of two Old Bailey cases where rape victims were subjected to humiliating questioning by their attackers.

Additionally, before any questions relating to a victim's sexual history can be asked, the leave of the judge is required. Any discretion a judge has to allow such questioning is severely constrained.

The most common defence to a rape allegation is that the sex was consensual. If a couple have sex every day and one day the woman claims to have been raped on one of those occasions, is it really to be suggested that, where consent is the issue, the couple's sexual history should not be heard by the jury?

Perpetrators of rape should be punished in the most severe way but it is wrong to suggest the low conviction rate for such offences is because prosecution lawyers are not good enough or that the system militates against convictions. Our system militates against any conviction where a jury cannot be sure.

One of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system is that allegations are easily made but not always easy to refute, especially when you agree with all the assertions of the alleged victim except that what happened was not entirely consensual.

There is no differentiation between victims. Innocent people sent to prison are just as much victims as those who have been raped.

-Jeffrey Lamb, Partner, Westgate Chambers, High Street, Lewes