In its official submission to the Home Office — seen by The Times — the 3,000-strong Criminal Bar Association will say that there is no need for a new definition of consent to make it clear when a woman is too drunk to say “no”.

The submission, drawn up by a woman QC, also opposes the use of the word “victim” in court, which, it says, sends out the message that all rape allegations are true. The association further rejects the proposed use of American-style expert witnesses to counter prejudices about women’s behaviour.

The submission has been drawn up by Sally O’Neill in response to proposals from the Government’s Office for Criminal Justice Reform and the Home Office to increase the conviction rate from its present level of 5.6 per cent of rape cases.

The barristers conclude that the proposals for reforms to law and procedure should not go ahead. Instead, they call for other measures to bring a change of culture in Crown courts and improve standards of prosecution and advocacy in serious sex cases.

This includes a new gold-standard training course for all barristers in those cases, already approved by the Crown Prosecution Service; new selection and monitoring of prosecutors; and reforms to the listing of cases so that barristers in rape trials are not double-booked.

Ministers have been examining the law on consent after a case last year that did not go ahead after the woman said that she was too drunk to know whether she had consented.

But the CBA paper says that no change to the law is needed. Juries were “quite able to distinguish” between a person who is drunk but still able to consent even though he or she may regret it afterwards; and someone who had drunk so much that, while not passing out, he or she was not in a state to give any form of meaningful consent.

When there was no evidence from other people, such cases would always be difficult and legislation would not solve the problem. Andrew Hall, QC, who takes over this week as chairman of the CBA, said: “Our report essentially concludes that extensive and procedural change is unnecessary.”

Although there was “proper public concern” about the low conviction rate in rape trials, Mr Hall added that “by its very nature, rape is a particularly difficult offence to prove to the criminal standard and will remain so unless the offence is redefined to mean ‘sex without consent’, irrespective of knowledge and belief”.

The CBA paper also opposes using experts to explain any unbecoming or puzzling behaviour on the part of the complainant before, during or after a rape. To do so would leave the jury thinking that they could not draw any conclusions of their own, it says.

The barristers’ views come as the Government outlines today fresh plans to bolster public confidence in the criminal justice system. John Reid, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General will reveal proposals to stop the Court of Appeal quashing convictions because of procedural mistakes made at arrest or trial. Common examples include the police failing properly to read suspects their rights or searching homes with out-of-date warrants.

However, judges and lawyers will argue that rules are in place to prevent abuse and protect against miscarriages of justice. Mr Hall said: “We have a responsibility to look at how to improve the workings of the criminal justice system, but in a way that is not subject to political or media pressure.

“In my view the system generally works, in that guilty people are generally convicted and innocent people are acquitted.”

Times Recommends

• PM to sue Icesave to get savers' money
• Former UBS lawyer pays $6.5m to settle probe
• Test case over non-dom told to pay UK taxes