Similar proposals in Scotland, predicated on research that did not use actual juries, have incurred the wrath of the legal profession in recent weeks.

In its new consultation paper, the legal reform body sets out proposals aimed at “countering the effects of rape myths and misconceptions on the trial process, treating complainants humanely, and ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial”.

In its section on juryless trials, the Law Commission draws on the research in Scotland, including the Dorrian Review.

It also cites the response of a psychologist to the suggestion of removing juries. 

She told the commission that if the system moved away from jury trials then this downstream effect would change, because lots of barristers’ tactics would no longer be effective.

Another response – from a psychotherapist – supported the removal of juries from sexual offences trials on the basis facts about such trials are “traumatising”. The commission states: “She echoed the concern about the trauma faced by jurors, including the fact that getting juries to confront the fact of complainant vulnerability and that apparently credible defendants are actually sex offenders, is deeply traumatising.”

One respondent said that because barristers appeal to the jury, removal of juries could make trials fairer and shorter.

Professor Penney Lewis, criminal law commissioner, said: “The last few decades have seen incremental progress in how sexual offences are investigated and tried in England and Wales. However, the way that the criminal justice system handles rape and serious sexual offences still leaves prosecutions at risk from the impact of pervasive rape myths, and can often cause distress and trauma.

“Our proposals are therefore aimed at improving the way that evidence is used in sexual offences prosecutions to do justice to complainants and defendants – fairly, compassionately, and with a better understanding of consent and sexual harm.”