BARRISTERS defending a sex attacker attempted to blame the victim by asking her why she wore a red dress the night she was assaulted, an MP said yesterday.

Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts warned that women are being unfairly subjected to humiliating cross-examination in court over their sexual history and choice of clothing.

She said her proposed Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill would restrict barristers from introducing “irrelevant sexual history” as evidence.

The move follows calls to reform the law after footballer Ched Evans was acquitted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a retrial after a judge allowed evidence to be heard from two men who had sex with her near to the time of the alleged offence.

Ms Saville Roberts gave the example of two women, named as Ivy and Emma but whose real identities cannot be revealed for legal reasons, who had faced unfair questioning in the witness box.

She told the Commons: “Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground-rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used.

But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous. There was no judicial intervention.

“Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of ‘stop or be killed.’ Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams. The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer’s evening.”

There were 33,798 complaints of rape to the police in 2015/16, but just 2,689 of them (7.5 per cent) resulted in convictions, the Commons heard.

The Bill will receive its second reading on March 24.

We need your support to keep running. If you like what you read please donate by clicking here