Legal anonymity has been much in the news lately what with the shocking cases of Baby P and the abused Sheffield sisters. Barrister Antony Hook weighs up a few pros and cons.

Openness is a hallmark of justice in a democratic state. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” was how US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it. It is obvious why. The hard experience of history is that public officials, judges included, serve best when people can see what they do, to whom they do it, and on what basis.

The secrecy in Baby P’s case is a striking exception. One killer, Jason Owen, has been named but the other two have not. I do not know why that is but the trial judge must consider that the interests of justice require it. The press can ask the judge to lift reporting restrictions and appeal to a higher court. The judge’s reasons should be reportable, although I have not seen them in print or online.

There are other occasions when dark glasses are put on to Justice Brandeis’ cleansing sunbeams. Anonymity is almost always granted to children in the criminal courts. Most trials of juveniles are closed to the public. This is partly to make the hearing more relaxed so young defendants can give their best account of themselves. It also helps ensure that a youthful misdemeanour does not obstruct maturity into law-abiding adulthood. Rape victims, like the sisters in Sheffield subjected to 25 years’ abuse by their father, have anonymity – before and after a jury consider their allegation – unless they waive their right to it. Anonymity helps victims who would not otherwise come forward.

It is, sadly, also a comfort to makers of false complaints. A few militant anti-rape campaigners regard any mention of false complaints as an attack on all rape victims. But only last week, a 22 year old Gloucester woman pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice by inventing a rape claim. She will serve just a few months in prison. Without diminishing our support for anonymity to help victims come forward, we must accept that it encourages a few false complainants to pursue life destroying lies.

You may recall a TV presenter whose career never recovered from unproven rape allegations. Tabloids rejoiced and the public, on whom his career depended, assumed his guilt. Unproven rape has, perhaps, worse stigma than even proven murder. Against such unfairness, Liberal Democrats adopted policy at conference (autumn 2006) to give unconvicted defendants in rape trials the same protection for their names and reputations protected as is given to complainants. This was a wholly grassroots initiated policy.

At Brighton, autumn 2007, the conference voted for witness anonymity in shooting cases in the emotive wake of the murder of a young boy in Liverpool: a good time to seize public attention but a perhaps a bad time for careful deliberation. Liberal Democrats’ secret witness policy would be unconstitutional in America (US Bill of Rights, Art. 6). It needs reconsideration following the House of Lords judgement in April in R v Davis. The Law Lords ruled that to hide witnesses’ identity from the accused risked an unfair trial.

This autumn, conference rejected Jonathon Marks’ motion to broadcast public court proceedings. One speaker in the debate announced, “I am a magistrate and I don’t want to be on television”. To which my response would have been, “You are empowered to imprison your fellow citizens; you should accept the world witnessing the manner in which you do it.” Whether or not proceedings are anonymous, justice’s brightest lamp is jury trial because juries ultimately subject Parliament’s laws to the public’s sense of justice.

Antony Hook is a barrister and candidate for the European Parliament in South East England. He blogs at www.antonyhook.com.