Scotland's most senior law officer has praised the "courage and dignity" of a woman whose case has led to a tightening of the country's rape laws.

Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, QC, is among those who have welcomed a ruling issued by seven senior Scottish judges on Friday.

They decided by a majority of five to two that sex without consent constitutes rape.

The emphasis on lack of consent being the essence of the crime is consistent with the approach taken in many Commonwealth countries and in England Colin Boyd Lord Advocate

The decision followed a controversial case in which an Aberdeen university student was cleared of rape because there was no evidence of force.

Mr Boyd paid tribute to the woman who was the alleged victim in that trial.

"The position of complainers in rape cases is often difficult, but she has shown great courage and dignity throughout this lengthy legal process," he said.

The Lord Advocate said that the judges' ruling had clarified the law of rape as it applies in the 21st century.

"In doing so, the court has again demonstrated the flexibility of the common law of Scotland," he said.

Position clarified

"The emphasis on lack of consent being the essence of the crime is consistent with the approach taken in many Commonwealth countries and in England."

The lawyer for the woman involved in the original case also welcomed the decision.

David Burnside said: "It clarifies, albeit late in the day for her, the position.

"It will give other women a degree of certainty and perhaps encourage women who perhaps might not have been willing to put themselves through the ordeal of a court appearance to come forward and report this very serious crime."

Edward Watt was acquitted of rape

However, there was no such welcome from the man who was acquitted of rape in the case.

Lord Abernethy ruled last year that Edward Watt had no case to answer because there was no evidence force had been used in the alleged rape.

Mr Watt, who denied the charge, said: "It has already been recognised by an English judge that there should be a register of false accusers.

"Now today in Scotland all we have done is move towards an English system which is already criticising its own system for fear of miscarriages of justice."

The judgement, which overturns a law dating back to 1858, was nevertheless welcomed by politicians and campaigners.

'False accusers'

Scottish National Party justice spokeswoman Roseanna Cunningham said: "This commonsense decision represents a very necessary redefinition of the law regarding rape to take account of society's attitudes in the 21st century.

"No must mean no, and now the law recognises that.

"Today's announcement sends out a very positive message."

If the legal profession can't agree on what rape is, how are the public and juries supposed to be clear about what it is? Sandy Brindley Glasgow Rape Crisis

Scottish Tory justice spokesman James Douglas Hamilton said: "Although we are content to leave it to juries to decide whether consent has been granted we do, in general terms, welcome what is a measured and balanced judgement that brings an ancient law into line with our contemporary society."

Sandy Brindley, a spokeswoman for Glasgow Rape Crisis, said the ruling had made the law clearer.

"We very much welcome the part about overcoming a woman's will being replaced by the idea of consent and that being enshrined in law," she said.

"But to make sure that women don't have to go through this again, we would like to see a statute.

Statutory law

"If the legal profession can't agree on what rape is, how are the public and juries supposed to be clear about what it is?"

Labour MSP Johann Lamont, a member of the Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, agreed that MSPs should consider drawing up a statutory rape law.

However, such a move was rejected by the group's chairman Gil Paterson.

"Scots law is sound enough to take care of this situation and I don't think it can be improved in that regard," he said.