Still seeing people argue that if someone accused of sexual crimes is acquitted it means the accuser was lying. It absolutely does not mean that. Let me explain.

Most sexual offences are never reported. Of those which are, the vast majority never make it to court. If cases do make it to court there is a high chance the accused will be acquitted. Why is this?

Fundamentally it is because, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there are only two people in the room when the incident occurs. That's why it can be very hard to get enough corroborated evidence to bring a case to court in the first place.

Even if it does get to court, it means jurors are essentially having to decide between two accounts of the same event. And two accounts where both people - the accused & the accuser - may genuinely appear to believe what they are saying.

So that's a tough thing to do. Anyone who has been on a jury knows that you are directed to reach a verdict that you feel is beyond reasonable doubt. And you take that very seriously if you are taking a decision that could result in someone going to jail.

So the choice for a juror is not as simple as deciding one person is telling the truth and one person is lying. It is about whether you are sufficiently sure of someone's guilt that you feel you can bring in a guilty verdict.

That can be tough enough in any case but it's particularly difficult in cases of sexual assault or rape, for the reasons I have given. So to interpret verdicts by saying "if he was not convicted, she must be lying" is just not the case & shows an ignorance of how trials work.

We won't reduce the incidence of sexual crime simply through the criminal justice system. It needs much wider societal change & challenge to the toxic rape culture which prevails. A desire to punish women who give evidence in cases which are not upheld is part of that toxicity.