What does the judge have to say about rape convictions?

I went to court today with my MA group to do some more court reporting. We were also able to have a Q&A with one of the judges.

As Iv'e been writing about rape conviction I decided to ask the judge whether he also thought that something needs to be done to improve the rape conviction rates. He replied with "I think it's been blown out of proportion..."

I pressed him on the standard of proof issue, that having to be sure the defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', made it almost impossible for juries to convict rapists.

I said that since rape cases often boil down to the mans word against the womans, how can Juries be expected to convict when there is no way of proving 100% that a woman was raped, even if the Jury believe that they were?

He didn't agree that the standard of proof should be amended in rape cases, saying that then we would then have to change the standard of proof for armed robbery,and so on.

He said he thought that Juries got it right 'most of the time' ('so stop complaining' -he seemed to suggest).

This means that, in the Judges' opinion, nearly 95% of women stand up in court and lie about being raped. Does that sound likely to you?

In the end he atleast agreed that perhaps the jury could be briefed more on the nature of rape cases and victim behaviour, to help deliberate on the verdict.

When are people going to start acknowledging that English law as it stands is inadequate when it comes to rape cases?