HIS word against her word. Her word against his. And while the jury will decide whether it has been rape, in truth, it is society that will judge.

That same society has moved on leaps and bounds in recent years in the sensitive handling of one of the most heinous violations.

Police and doctors are specially trained, police stations have special suites and victims' complaints are taken seriously. The "she was asking for it" mentality of the last century has been confined to the annals of an unjust history. Yet rape remains one of the most difficult cases to judge.

Whether sex took place is no longer the issue. Forensic science is definitive, able to match samples and DNA. The question comes down to consent, the victim saying no, the accused yes - his word and against hers, her word against his. Guilt and innocence becomes blurred in a flurry of claims and counter claims, leaving the jury so perplexed that 92 per cent of cases lead to an acquittal - allowing some of the guilty to walk free.

But in a society which thrives on gossip, on finger-pointing and on direct action, the matter isn't necessarily over even when the court case is.

In 1976, when new rape laws were introduced, both victim and accused enjoyed anonymity until guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. But, in the 1980s, the law was amended so the accused could be named.

Since then, more mud has stuck than is decent in a society where balance is supposed to be paramount.

"Given the massive acquittal rate, we believe people shouldn't be named unless they are found guilty," says director of Wearside Women in Need Clare Phillipson. "You cannot pillory people for being accused of a sex offence. There are a lot of people out there who are ill and capable of accusing you of anything. Then your reputation is ruined even if you are acquitted. It's a total minefield so you have got to be cautious.

"We see a lot of women and the majority have been raped but don't ever go anywhere near the police or a court. The problem isn't the police, it's the adversarial court system. I wouldn't want to go through the court system either, it's horrible. But then I wouldn't want to be an innocent man either."

For some, the hurt goes much deeper than mere reputation and they are pushed to the brink of suicide.

"It's one of the most damaging allegations which can be made against anyone," says Angus McBride, a London solicitor who specialises in rape cases. "More and more charges are brought following a complaint. There used to have to be corroborative evidence. Now anyone can just walk in and say 'that has just happened to me', even where it's one person's word against another. The stigma is so high."

Very few cases are stranger rapes, and allegations come against a background of previous personal relationships.

The accused must then endure all manner of intimate and humiliating examinations. They've the right to refuse, but to do so infers guilt. They may have no experience of the police and legal system yet find themselves locked in a cell, their details on record, their dignity in tatters, before being released on bail to "sweat it out" for four to six months while the case comes to court.

"It's appalling," says Mr McBride. "If they have not done it, the pressures they are under are immense."

While in many ways it's right that the balance has swung in favour of women - that they are taken seriously, that they receive the sympathy and understanding they deserve - it could be seen that the swing has been too great.

"A lot has been done to help people come forward and the fact they are treated properly is a good thing. But wherever there are true allegations, there will be people who are prepared to make the most of the system and make false allegations. And whether the accused are charged and acquitted, or charged and the case is dropped, it is always there, always in their minds. They will have had to explain it to their family and it may even stay on record.

"Victims must be taken seriously, or we would be going back into the dark ages, but we have to be aware of the balance, protecting the rights of the innocent and the complainant who has been wronged.

"So I think there is a strong argument for anonymity. If they are convicted then the whole things goes out the window."

But if they are acquitted they should be allowed continue their lives without anyone knowing, he says.

It's a similar argument for the naming of the accused rapist as with children accused of serious offences. It's in the public interest, newspaper editors cry. And in cases where police pursue serial rapists and dangerous sex offenders are released on bail, the argument is strong to tell society who these people are, so people can take adequate precautions to avoid them.

But with children, removing the veil of secrecy is a rarity, to be granted by a court only in exceptional circumstances, to protect their future lives. So why not in the equally sensitive case of rape?

Lord Corbett was home affairs spokesman responsible for overseeing the 1976 legislation which granted both sides anonymity and is calling for the re-instatement of the law.

"In most cases of rape this is the word of one woman against one man and both ways round. Whatever the outcome of the trial, the strong feeling of Parliament was that acquittal was not enough to protect the reputation of either the complainant woman or the defendant man." The current system has nothing to do with justice, he adds.

And as the debate rages about the "Hamiltons", whether or not they committed an alleged rape - their word against hers, her word against theirs - rightly or wrongly, most people will have already made up their minds.