What are these "societal myths" about rape which the CPS believes are hindering its conviction rate? They are helpfully listed on the CPS website:

1. Rape occurs between strangers in dark alleys
2. Women provoke rape by the way they dress or act
3. Women who drink alcohol or use drugs are asking to be raped
4. Rape is a crime of passion
5. If she didn't scream, fight or get injured, it wasn't rape
6. You can tell if she's "really" been raped by how she acts
7 Women cry rape when they regret having sex or want revenge
8. Only gay men get raped/only gay men rape men
9. Prostitutes cannot be raped
10. If the victim didn't complain immediately it wasn't rape

These myths, says Ms Saunders, are "brought into the jury room and form an obstacle to obtaining convictions". In other words, whatever its spokespeople may say on the court steps after a high-profile acquittal, the leader of the CPS doesn't trust juries in rape, or for that matter other sexual, cases. Short of introducing some sort of "right-thinking" selection test for jurors it is impossible to see how a jury free of such prejudices — and many others besides — could ever be guaranteed. And if juries cannot be trusted to do justice the logical thing to do is to abolish them altogether.

Ms Saunders's immediate predecessor as DPP, Sir Keir Starmer, has now embarked on his own attack on juries, although again for the moment it is oblique rather than explicit. He is the leader of the Labour Party's victims taskforce, an organisation set up by Ed Miliband promising "a radical shake-up in the justice system". Just how radical it will be remains to be seen but Sir Keir has already suggested that judges rather than defence counsel conduct the cross-examination of "vulnerable" prosecution witnesses. This would transform the trial judge from an impartial umpire into a player — albeit a purveyor of friendly long hops to the prosecution witnesses rather than the sort of Mitchell Johnson-style strike bowler that most defendants would prefer. It is impossible to see how jury trial could survive such a change.

Anyone looking to the judiciary to stand up for juries will be disappointed. In fact, it seems to be developing its own critique of the system. In a little reported lecture in March the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, revived Lord Justice Auld's 2001 suggestion of an "intermediate court consisting of a judge sitting with two magistrates" for less serious Crown Court offences, a proposal described at the time by Joshua Rozenberg as "a shard to the heart for trial by jury". At the other end of the scale Thomas has proposed that the way serious fraud is tried should be "reconsidered" and even hinted at support for a more "inquisitorial" system generally. These changes would, he points out, save money, a pretty powerful argument for any government.

It is quite easy to see how a future government could accommodate all this. Sex cases would be tried by a special inquisitorial court charged with doing justice certainly, but doing so without upsetting the "victims". Frauds would be tried by a special fraud panel of judges and accountants. The jurisdiction of magistrates would be widened to include most thefts and assaults. Juries might linger on in a small rump of cases for a few years before being abolished as an absurd anachronism.