"of course HerBeX. But the prosection just need to do two things 1.prove an offence has bee ncommited 2 who did it.
Defence will have the majority of the floor to pull her conduct apart and give an impression it was her fault and she invited it, as a basis to their defence. It's a harrassment case. We are a small voluntary org. and we can't really afford the cost but we are going to have to because of how the court room works."
It's not really that one-sided. The crown take their witness through her evidence in chief and yes, that is geared primarily towards establishing the basic elements of the offence, but a good prosecutor will obviously make sure that the details are brought out. The defence will then cross-examine her on the basis of the defendant's case, ie the account that the defendant will give in his evidence will have to be openly put to the witness so that she has an opportunity to comment on each aspect of it. If the defendant says something in his evidence that has not been put to the witness then she will have to be recalled and given the opportunity to agree or disagree with it. At this point, if it is the defendant's case that the relationship was consensual etc, the defence lawyer will cross-examine her on her conduct relating to that. The defence will not have a free reign - for example they will almost certainly not be allowed to question her about her sexual history or things of that nature.
Once that has happened then the same thing happens in reverse. The defendant gives his evidence and the prosecution cross-examine him about his conduct.
The two sides of the case are pretty much mirror-images of one another. It is not a case of the defendant sitting protected from any examination of his conduct while the witness is torn apart. The only way that the defendant can avoid the same treatment is if he refuses to give evidence - this is his right but he cannot then refute anything she says and the jury will generally be invited to draw an adverse inference from his silence.
Obviously the whole thing is going to be very upsetting for an honest witness, and less so for a guilty defendant, but not every defendant is guilty and innocent defendants go through just as much hell as truthful complainants.
There is a lot of controversy about the stats for false allegations - it is a difficult thing to work out for obvious reasons, but I can say with certainty that it is not as uncommon as you might think. I am constantly surprised when it happens. I have worked on a number of rape/sexual assault cases - probably around a dozen rape cases and maybe about twenty sexual assault cases. Out of those, three complainants were categorically shown to be untruthful and a fourth admitted fabricating the allegation. There was a also another case which didn't get to court because the complainant was caught sending text messages to a friend about the made-up allegation.
The false allegations are incredibly distressing for all concerned - the defendant has been dragged through the mud, the police have invested time, money and emotion in pursuing a lie, the jury have become emotionally involved in the case and, worst of all, the truthful victims of rape and assault take yet another knock to their credibility.
The system isn't perfect by any means but I am not sure what the answer is. A lot of the old protections for defendants have been removed and there is a real risk of the trial process becoming unfair if much more gives. Juries are unpredictable and rape cases are evidentially difficult because it is so often one person's word against another's without other evidence. In those circumstances, it is very difficult for a jury to be "completely sure" of guilt, which is what is required. Add to that the fact that the complainant is inevitably going to find giving ger evidence difficult and distressing and the acquittal rate is not surprising. One thing that might make a difference is continued improvement to the care that rape victims receive at the time of making their report and in the run-up to trial. Better support generally means better evidence. Better evidence makes things much easier for a jury.
Also bear in mind, in cases like this, the reporting can be massively inaccurate. I did two high-profile cases last year where the press came in their droves. On several occasions some of the things in the newspaper reports were quite simply made up to make a better story - people were quoted as saying things they never actually said at all, and statistics and figures were manipulated and deliberately taken out of context.