This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.
Travelling down to Manchester airport a couple of weeks ago it was hard to take my eyes off my work emails.
One by one they popped into my basket thanking me for an interview I had done with the leading criminal defence advocate Thomas Leonard Ross KC, which had appeared on The Herald's front page that day.
Mr Ross had come to me some weeks before to highlight concerns he had that in some cases Scotland's "rape shield" laws were putting the accused's right to have a fair trial at grave risk and I spent some time researching the issues he wanted to raise.
It was not the start to my holiday that I had expected, nor was it the reaction to the story I was anticipating.
READ MORE:Â
- Top lawyer warns men accused of rape may not get a fair trial
- MSPs raise alarm over soaring welfare costs as bill to rise to over ÂŁ9 billion
- Former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell granted legal aid after embezzlement charge
In total I received around 20 emails from families of men in prison convicted of rape who wanted to tell me about what they had gone through in the legal system.
In each case mothers, wives and partners believed their loved ones had not received a fair trial and had been unable to put before the court evidence which they believed would have exonerated them. I am hoping to report on some of their stories soon.
The experiences which they recounted made me doubt my own views on how the rights of the victim not to experience intrusive or unfair questioning in court from defence lawyers are balanced against the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
Until my conversation with Mr Ross - and the messages from families - I believed the balance was pretty much in favour of the accused.
My view was shaped by an experience I had covering a rape and attempted murder trial earlier in my career while working as a crime reporter.
The case involved a sex worker with the prosecution alleging she had been attacked by a client with the accused said to have driven a car at her after raping her.
The accused denied the attacks and claimed that sex between the two had been consensual. Though earlier in the trial he had denied sex had taken place at all.
To me, the woman's case was strong and strengthened by the accused changing his story - when DNA evidence emerged - mid way through the trial.
But as the woman got up to take her oath, I had an uncomfortable feeling the jury weren't ready to give her a fair hearing.
Get Scotland's top politics newsletter straight to your inbox.
A male juror smirked, sat back and folded his arms. My instinct was correct. The accused was acquitted following a not proven verdict. At the end of the trial, his previous convictions emerged -  he had a previous conviction for a similar offence to the one he had just been acquitted of.
But many years on from that case, the question now is whether the pendulum has swung too far to favour the complainer at the expense of the accused?
Are some men charged with rape not getting a fair trial in Scotland and is it time for a review of the interpretation of laws over the admissibility of evidence?
This is a topic I am determined to investigate further.
