Anti-rape campaigners described as �horrendous� the findings of a detailed survey of court cases that showed victims are increasingly likely to face humiliating questions about their sexual histories.

Anti-rape campaigners described as "horrendous" the findings of a detailed survey of court cases that showed victims are increasingly likely to face humiliating questions about their sexual histories.

The research showed legislation aimed at sparing alleged rape victims from being quizzed in court to undermine their credibility has backfired. With fewer than 4% of rape allegations leading to conviction, it has been linked to women's reluctance to report sexual attacks for fear of the treatment they could face in court.

The Sexual Offences Act 2002 was passed in response to a major campaign to block those accused of rape conducting their own defence and confronting their female accusers with their own cross-examination. The new law was also intended to spare women from facing "indignity and humiliating questions" from defence lawyers while giving evidence. Counsel must apply in writing to introduce questions about a woman's sexual history.

New research released by the Scottish Government yesterday found the law's operation means that sexual history is being used more often than before, often to discredit a witness. This can include highly personal questions about sexual practices, sex aids and drug use. Applications were made in 72% of cases during the study, some by the prosecution. They were rarely challenged and only 7% were rejected. Once approved, nearly half the trials included information beyond that agreed in advance by the judge.

"The 2002 act has had the consequences of the introduction of more sexual history and character evidence than under the previous legislation, when an aim was to restrict such questioning," it found. The balance struck in the law was that women could only face such questions if the accused had any prior sex crimes revealed by the prosecution.

The proportion of trials with applications, almost all of which are successful, has increased markedly, according to the evaluation of the 2002 act. It concludes: "The belt and braces' and scatter-gun' approach adopted by the defence means that the questioning or evidence sought in written applications is now far more detailed and extensive than that sought in verbal applications made during the trial under the previous 1995 act."

Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, said the report made horrendous reading: "It is little wonder that so many women do not report rape. Many women tell us that the reason for not reporting includes fear about what will happen in court. This research shows that this fear is entirely justified.

"Sexual history and character evidence is primarily based on the notion that certain types' of women are unlikely not to have consented to sex. This type of evidence is prejudicial, humiliating and has no place in our courts. Any reform of the law on rape must address the issue of sexual history evidence. Otherwise we are unlikely ever to improve our abysmal conviction rate."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the Scottish Government will do everything possible to bring the perpetrators of such "horrible crimes" to justice, with a new law of rape planned for the coming year, broadening the crime's definition and rebalancing the burden of proof on the question of consent for sex.

"As this report shows, the law that is meant to protect victims of these crimes from unnecessary lines of questioning has to be made to work a lot better," he commented, with guidance and training for prosecutors already stepped up.

The issue came to the fore publicly in 2000 when an accused, John Anderson, was allowed to question a 13-year-old girl and her mother, whom he was accused of raping. He was later acquitted.

In 2002 seventeen-year-old Lindsay Armstrong, from New Cumnock in Ayrshire killed herself after being forced to hold up in court the thong she wore on the night she was attacked.