A BLISTERING rebuke of a judge who made “wholly inappropriate” remarks during a rape trial is to be flagged up to  Scotland’s prosecutors.

Norman Ritchie, QC, was lambasted by his superior, Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, for the way both he and defence agents treated a complainer in the case.

As The Herald revealed yesterday, Lady Dorrian criticised Mr Ritchie for questioning the woman, for allowing the defence to insult her during cross-examination and for declaring her previous statements “blew her evidence out of the water”.

READ MORE: High Court Judge lambasted for 'wholly inappropriate' comments in rape case 

Now her landmark remarks, in a judgment refusing an appeal against conviction by double rapist Philip Donegan, are to be shared through the legal system.

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “The Crown is aware of this case; and Lady Dorrian’s remarks are being specifically drawn to the attention of prosecutors.”

After reading Lady Dorrian’s judgment, Rape Crisis Scotland branded Mr Ritchie’s conduct of Donegan’s trial as “shocking”. The organisation’s Sandy Brindley claimed the complainer’s treatment in court was

a prime example of “why women are scared to report rape”.

Ms Brindley added: “We would like to see the Crown take a more active role in protecting complainers in court.

“It is our experience that they rarely object to inappropriate cross-examination. Unless the judge intervenes, complainers can feel exposed and unprotected.”

The spokesman for the Crown responded: “Prosecutors will object to questioning where it is appropriate to do so, including when they consider the questioning to be unfair or oppressive. “

However, he added: “The decision on any objection to questions is a matter for the trial judge.”

The case, at the High Court in Glasgow, had ended with Donegan, a former territorial army officer from Knightswood, Glasgow, being convicted of two counts of rape and jailed for eight years.

READ MORE: Rape convictions in Scotland at lowest level in almost a decade 

In her appeal judgment, Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge, said: “It was clear from the transcripts of the evidence at trial that the complainer, who was in the witness box for three days, was subjected to a lengthy, unjustified and sometimes insulting cross-examination on issues which included her delay in reporting the offence, the reasons for that, her varying accounts as to what occurred and her failure to shout out or seek help from others during the attack.”

Lady Dorrian described the questioning from Donegan’s defence as “derogatory and insulting”, adding that she was surprised that there was no objection from the Crown.

She added: “Moreover, rather than being tempered by the bench, the experience for the witness was merely prolonged further by the inquisitorial nature of the trial judge’s own questioning, which in some instances took the form of cross-examination in itself.”

A judiciary spokeswoman said: “Judges have regard to the decisions and observations of the appeal court, and implement them in future cases.”