incorrect'' defences forward in sex assault cases.

And Bar Association honorary secretary Ian Kawaley said a judge was duty bound to explain a defence to a jury.

He added: "While Mrs. Young's political advocacy of the right of women to say `no' is entirely justified, the attack on this particular summing-up appears to have no legal justification.

But he admitted that "it may well be the case'' that judges might need extra training to protect the rights of women in court proceedings.

He added: "If so, this can best be achieved by diplomatic approaches to the judiciary rather than through public attacks.'' The Bar Association spoke out after UBP Shadow Minister Kim Young slammed Chief Justice Austin Ward's closing comments to a jury in a sex case.

She lashed out at Mr. Justice Ward's summing up comments, where he said the jury had to consider whether the alleged victim "had been sending mixed messages'' if her "no'' was "a genuine no.'' Ms Young insisted a woman had the right to say no and have that right respected.

And she said judges, prosecutors and Police should undergo special sensitivity training on women's issues.

But Mr. Kawaley said the accused man -- who was cleared of a serious sex assault on his ex-girlfriend -- had a Constitutional right to advance whatever defence he wanted to.

He added: "The right includes the entitlement of the accused to advance by way of defence the contention that, although the complainant may not have explicitly consented, he genuinely understood on reasonable grounds that her `no' meant `yes.' "The Chief Justice was duty bound to explain to the jury the accused's defence, leaving it to the jury to determine the reasonableness of the defence on the basis of the evidence given at trial and the respective arguments of prosecuting and defence counsel.'' And Mr. Kawaley added: "Until..the Constitution is amended, persons accused of rape have the legal right to advance politically incorrect defences.''