Scots ministers consult on sexual offence trial changes

If the proposals are backed, judges would be required to tell juries not to let these facts affect their judgement of the accused.

The proposed jury directions would seek to stop common myths about sexual assault from affecting juror deliberations.

Research has found that most rape victims show little physical resistance to attacks, despite this often being offered to juries as evidence of consent.

Under current practice, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) try to combat misconceptions about responses to sexual assault through the use of expert evidence in individual cases.

This normally involves receiving the evidence of psychologists with a background in profiling victims of sexual assault and rape.

The introduction of judicial directions would eliminate this “need to lead expert evidence in every case”, according to government sources.

In an interview with Holyrood magazine, advocate depute Kathleen Harper, head of COPFS’ national sexual crimes unit, warned that mandatory directions “might lose the colour of the psychologists’ evidence, which I think juries welcome”.

However, she added: “From a personal perspective, I welcome leading the evidence. But as societal understanding of these issues progresses – and I think it’s progressing all the time – it may be something that in the future might simply become a mandatory direction.”