British justice? A woman who was abused by her teacher has taken her own life after being cross-examined.

Alas, this happens all too often: the survivors of rape and abuse are violated all over again in the courtroom. I have always maintained that rape/abuse should be tried in the same way as any other form of assault, with no blame being attached to the victims. After all, if a man is mugged in the street, he is not questioned in court as to what he was wearing, or told that he shouldn't have gone out with money in his pocket/a watch on his wrist. It is no wonder that only a small percentage of rape/sexual assault crimes are reported to the police in the first place, as the police themselves are mostly not trained to deal with such cases. The root of the trouble is that we live in a misogynistic society, in which men consider themselves entitled to use and abuse women.

Some time ago, a 35 year old came to me because she had a minor relationship problem. She had a high profile, busy job & could only come once a month. "It will only need a couple of sessions." she said. Gradually many major trauma & other issues came out and finally the fact that she had been abused by a family friend over many years from when she was 5. She dismissed any thought of even telling her family, let alone the police. Because of all the fuss over False Memory Syndrome I said I'd never ask for the details of the abuse as there were many non-verbal ways of working so the abuse didn't affect her current life & relationships. This was done but she reached a point (after her own father had died) where she no longer felt the abuse was her fault & decided she wanted to contact the police. First, she told her sibings & discovered they too had been abused. She went to her home police force who had been properly trained & were brilliant. When she was transferred to the Force in the large town where it happened she was interviewed by the Head of the Murder squad & told, on advice of the CPS, that because of the counselling & because others involved were her siblings, nothing could be done though they did agree to interviewing the man involved. His age was another reason given for not pursuing it. One hopes that the fact his son was their current Police Schools Liaison Officer did not influence the decision. I never did know the details of the abuse so I could not have interferred with evidence. She would never have gone to the Police without our work together but our work also meant she had reached a place where she could live with the lack of prosecution & she went on to have a relationship & adopt a child. I feel angry that no one bothered to ask about the exact nature of the counselling she'd had.

Sometimes, the time comes right because others have now come forward and complained about that same person and thy think they will be believed now, or there is a realisation that disclosing what has happened might help the person to come to terms with the theft of their childhood, or they are coerced into giving evidence by police, or some people see yet another generation at risk of abuse and they decide they can't live with not speaking out, or they realise they will feel safer amongst a number of complainants so it gives them courage....and many more reasons.

I agree Kitty it is the job of the judge to stop any harrassment and the job of the defence to push as far as they are allowed. The defence has to do its best for its client.

I would like to understand why people who have been abused when children sudddenly decide to bring it into the open 30 years later. What triggers that? How can something be proved so long after the event? By then is it not just one person's word against another? I'm not talking about this case, just generally.

I understand that the victim in this case refused the offer of screens or video link as all adult victims have the right to do. Someone who has supported the victim before the trial and is, therefore, privy to any information that might have been disclosed, cannot sit in the court with the victim.

As a Witness Service volunteer, my job is to help prepare the victims and witnesses for going into court and part of that is to warn them of the hostility they might face from the defence barrister. Defence barristers have a job to do and I feel that the Judge or the CPS should have objected to the sort of cross-examination this woman seems to have been subjected to. I have seem that happen fairly often in trails where the victim becomes obviously distressed.

We can go into court with the victim and sit with them precisely because we know nothing about the case whereas, almost everyone else connected to the victim, will be aware of at least some of the evidence

I think there was some confusion in her own mind about whether she was under the age of consent at the time and clarity of thought would not have been helped by the level of what seems like harassment from the defence barrister. Certainly her teacher abused his position and her trust whether she was over or under 16.

In very few cases of sex abuse that get to court is the accuser a fantatsist. The police and Crown Prosecution Service demand very high standards of evidence before bringing such cases and usually to not prosecute unless they are very sure of their ground.

Obviously the question of fantasy will be a defence, but it is a very weak one and a barrister who labours this point, is failing their client as much as anything.

The effect sexual abuse has on a child is deep and corrosive, Francesca Andrade is not the first victim of child abuse to commit suicide as an adult when the abuse becomes known. It has happened only too often. I believe all victims of child sexual abuse, no matter how old they are when the case comes to court should be treated with the same care that child victims themselves are treated including the use of video links, screens and somebody (like the praised victim support officer sitting with them) when they give the evidence.

Yes, our adversarial system has been unsuitable for such cases for so long. I don't know much about 'inquisitorial' systems, which I have been told they have in countries like France. Something needs desperately to change.

According to her family Ms Andrade really valued the help of the police support officer. She was not the one who brought the abuse to the notice of the police in the first place and was annoyed with the person who did – the mother of one of her pupils, I think. She agreed to be a witness but was hesitant about it. I think the real issue is the adversarial system we have in our courts which has nothing to do with finding the truth or obtaining justice and everything to do with being smart enough to win.

I agree when, reading a transcript of the cross examination I think the barrister went too far. I know it was her job to defend her client but she kept going over the same ground again and again calling Mrs Andrade a liar and fantasist several times. In my opinion the judge should have put a stop to it, told the barrister she had made her point and to move on.

She had tried to put the abuse behind her and didn't want to testify but the police convinced her to give evidence

Perhaps if the poor girl had been violated by Joe Bloggs round the corner, it may have been a different story.