The rape of a woman is a particularly heinous crime, whose victims may not be only physically hurt, but emotionally and psychologically scarred.

There is often this deep sense of shame among the victims, who raise questions about fault - did they ask for it etc.

In that context, this newspaper welcomes and supports those victims of rape who report the attacks, are willing to prosecute the case and to confront their attackers in a court of law. By doing this they strike a blow for justice and, hopefully, chip away at the social overburden that will eventually reveal rape for precisely what it is: a nasty crime.

We do not believe, therefore, that women who muster the courage and go to court ought to be further victimised by being made to stand trial for their characters and sexual histories. That, unfortunately, is what happens too often in rape cases; lawyers attempting to paint the victims as women of loose virtue who could or would never have said no and not worthy of rape.

But even as we believe that there ought to be limits on this type of defence, we insist on the right of persons accused of rape, as it should be for persons accused of any crime, to trials that are fair. In that regard, there has to be a balance between the right of the accused to adduce evidence to support his claim of innocence and an attempt to have that evidence becoming a social tar and feathering of the victim. The process has to be fair.

With that in mind, we do not support the position of organisations like Woman Incorporated, who proposed to a parliamentary committee reviewing the sexual offences laws, that a complainant's sexual history should be completely off-limits during a rape trial.

Common sense suggests to us that such restrictions would impede the ability of the accused to fully defend the charge against him, thereby striking at the heart of the concept of a fair trial. Indeed, there may be information relating to a person's past behaviour that is crucial to a person's defence. What is important is that defence lawyers are not allowed to range free on a dirt-splashing expedition in the hope that some of the muck will stick.

We, therefore, have sympathy for the position in the draft bill that would limit the right of the defence to raise questions or cross-examine a victim about her sexual history, except her relationship with the accused. In this circumstance, the judge would have to grant permission for questions and would have to apply a pre-determined criteria in arriving at his decision to allow the probe.

The point is, that a rape trial should not be a circus, a place for voyeuristic indulgences or the judging of a woman's character. It should matter not how many times she said yes in the past, or to how many. What is important is whether she said no this time and was raped. That is not arrived at in an environment of theatre or emotion but during a diligent, measured and careful search for the truth.

Regrettably, well-meaning organisations like Woman Inc., in seeking to defend the interests of their constituency, often fail to look at the bigger picture. Rape trials are not always only about the interest of a woman who claims to have been raped, for indeed malice is not gender specific.

The organisation's concerns are not without foundation but the pursuit of justice should cover the interests of all parties.