Rape anonymity — the right of the accused in rape cases to have their identity kept secret — is in the news again today, after Conservative MP and deputy speaker Nigel Evans was named publicly following his arrest on suspicion of rape and sexual assault.
The Coalition Agreement said the Government would ‘extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants’. Though the pledge hadn’t been included in either party’s manifestos, it was Lib Dem policy, agreed at the 2006 party conference. The Lib Dems’ then home office minister Lynne Featherstone was in favour of the idea, arguing ‘It is clearly appalling for someone who is innocent to find their life and reputation ruined by false accusation and trial.’
It was a controversial pledge at the time — Karen Kruzycka criticised it here on LDV at the time: ‘The fact that anonymity is only applied in very specific circumstances is part of the openness of the UK’s legal system, for the good of all.’ — and was dropped within a couple of months.
Karen’s point still stands. While it would of course be horrific to be falsely accused of rape, there’s no evidence that false accusations are more common in rape cases than in other types of crime. And it wouldn’t have protected someone like Christopher Jefferies whose reputation was notoriously dragged through the mud by the press when he was arrested in connection with Joanna Yeates’ murder.
More importantly, anonymity wouldn’t serve the cause of justice, something the Telegraph pointed out after Stuart Hall’s admission of sexual assault crimes last week:
After the case made headlines, 10 more women came forward with allegations of assault. None of them knew each other, and almost two decades separated the first and last attacks: unless his identity had been shared with the public, they would never have found out that they were not Hall’s only victim. Indeed, one woman who came forward said that she did so only because she heard about his arrest while listening to the radio. On April 16 this year, Hall pleaded guilty to 14 indecent assaults on 13 girls, one as young as nine years old.
Ultimately the best safeguard for maintaining a free and open society is an accountable and open system of justice. Secrecy, however well-intentioned, is hardly ever preferable to transparency, however messy.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour no longer stand up for the sick and vulnerable
Urban ReLeaf - event invitation #dundeewestend
Alan Bennett on Dudley Moore and jazz
Colin Bloodworth
Helen Dudden
Mark Frankel
Mick Taylor
Peter Davies
24 Comments
I take the view that anonymity should be the strong presumption. The point of contention isn’t whether they are guilty or not, rather the severity of the consequences and the nature of the offence, that causes such significantly greater harm to those who are innocent than those who are guilty, that is the problem.
Sexual offences carry a stigma precisely because the conviction rates are so comparatively low compared to other crimes. Even if you are acquitted at trial (or even have the charges against you dropped) there is a huge and permanent reputational damage going right to the heart of your character and suitability to be around (especially vulnerable) people in society.
The countervailing consideration is obviously that the reason the conviction rate is so low is the difficulty proving to a criminal standard, sexual offences, which require a detailed examination of consent, often take place in intimate and private environments, and relate to a very personal power relationship which has been abused (more rape victims know their perpetrator than not). Many convictions for sexual offences rely upon more than one person coming forward, in order that they can establish a pattern of conduct by way of corroboration in support of a complaint. It is also true that many don’t come forward until they become aware of others having made accusations against the same person.
This ultimately has to be a question treated on a case-by-case basis, but with a presumption against disclosure. The police and Procurator Fiscal/DPP should be able to apply to a court to be allowed to disclose the name of an individual in public communications where they have reasonable suspicion that it would a) be in the interests of public safety where an individual is believed to be an imminent threat and is at large or b) they have reasonable suspicion that an individual is related to a pattern of offences and that there are other victims not known to them or c) that there is another highly unusual set of circumstances favouring public interest of disclosure. The presumption against disclosure should be stronger at interview and arrest stage and less strong at trial.
There are good arguments in favour of anonymity and disclosure; I think I lean towards anonymity.
The balance is between the permanent reputational damage caused by being wrongly arrested/charged for a sexual offence and the benefits to wider justice of naming suspects.
While the Stuart Hall case serves as a good example of the latter, in that more complainants came forward after he was named, I suspect that sort of example is rare, not least because of the nature of most sexual offences.
Is it worth the damage caused to those wrongly suspected in order to make conviction in a small number of cases more likely? I don’t think it is.
And the Chris Jefferies case doesn’t help much I don’t think; the problem in his case was the nature of the coverage, for which he later secured several payments in libel actions. In the case of an arrest or charge of a sexual offence it is not the nature of the media coverage that is the problem, it is the mere naming which does the damage.
As Graeme says, the case for anonymity at arrest stage is much more compelling, whereas at charge it is a much more finely balanced thing.
I have some sympathy with Stephen’s position, but find myself agreeing more with Graeme. Having known someone who was falsely accused of rape and struggled to rebuild his life afterwards (even with the help of psychological therapies) I believe that Lynne Featherstone was right that such eventualities are “appalling” and we must think very carefully before making sweeping observations.
It may very well be that “there’s no evidence that false accusations are more common in rape cases than in other types of crime”. I suspect as much. However, being wrongfully accused of rape is quite different to being accused of a range of other criminal offences. The stigmatism, inevitable public assumptions of guilt, wider media interest etc, bring with them psychological consequences which run deeper than merely loss of reputation (although Graeme is right to point that out).
It is also simplistic to take the case of Stuart Hall and glibly make the hypothesis that “anonymity wouldn’t serve the cause of justice”.
I think most liberals accept the need for “an accountable and open system of justice”. The question is: accountable and open to whom? Access to justice means a great deal more than “naming and shaming”.
Certainly this is a delicate and complex issue but I would agree with the above commenters who agree that anonymity at arrest stage should be preserved. Graeme’s suggestion of considering each case on its own merits is surely not only sensible but the arrangement that would work most convincingly to promote justice.
Remember John Leslie?
I do agree that the problem here is selecting the lesser of two evils, it just depends on which you define as the lesser evil; releasing the name of the accused in the hope that more victims come forward or anonymity to prevent the life of the accused being ruined. I tend to lean more towards anonymity but would prefer that the release of a name could be done so at the discretion of those dealing with the case if they think it is in the public interest.
@Nick Thornsby:
“Is it worth the damage caused to those wrongly suspected in order to make conviction in a small number of cases more likely?”
Not just making conviction more likely. Thereby topping a serial offender being free to abuse more women/children.
NB. “Not successfully convicted of a rape charge” and “falsely accused of rape” are not the same thing.
I am afraid I don’t agree with Stephen, and have to agree with the points made by the three who have commented above. I think, especially in a modern internet / social media age, there’s no way back from that original accusation being placed in the public sphere through reporting in the media, either nationally or locally.
We are regularly warned about putting things onto our websites / social networking pages which would affect the way a prospective employer would see us, as screening someone’s online presence becomes more common for a whole host of . Imagine an employer who is down to two people for a job, and Googles their names to find more about them. Which one do you think is most likely to get the job? Or if you are starting a new relationship, and your new partner searches you online and finds this wholly incorrect accusation against you.
In a strange way, the issue of public accusation is something which can affect non-famous citizens more than celebrities and politicians, who once found innocent actually have a better chance of their reputation being cleared by the media who are interested in their case than someone who has not made it onto the wider media’s radar. Their innocence is extremely unlikely to receive the attention their arrest would, yet the damage can be done to their life already.
It’s difficult, but most crimes do not include anonymity for the accused. On the other hand accusations of rape carry a stigma. Personally, I think it’s probably right to name an arrested suspect. In the case of certain kinds of serial sex offender the evidence is an accumulative pattern of behavior. Jimmy Seville may have been stopped if allegation against him had been made public. He was certainly interviewed by the police on a number of occasion as was Ian Huntley. In truth the police are probably being too cautious about making arrests in some cases where is evidence of a pattern of abusive sexual behavior.
Why one earth should someone have their life ruined by a false accusation when their accuser can stay anonymous? Surely it is only fair that both people should have the right to remain anonymous?
I don’t see how rape is considered more reputation damaging than mass murder. It pains me the way too many politicians seem to love discrimination.
Anonymity for the accused is a difficult one for me. I would favour keeping anonymity out of it – in one way it helps prevent malicious rumours, which can also be damaging.
I have to agree with Steven on this, most cases of rape/sexual assault/child abuse seem to be by serial offenders & all these crimes tend to generate guilt & shame in the victims, discouraging accusations in the first place. Victims dont expect to be taken seriously & often arent & seeing another victim come forward can make the difference.
I dont think we are anywhere near accepting the scale of of abse yet, theres a lot more to come.
@Eddie
“I don’t see how rape is considered more reputation damaging than mass murder. It pains me the way too many politicians seem to love discrimination. ”
Interesting point. I suppose a counter point could be that the old adage of “there’s no smoke without fire” is rarely applied to people found not guilty of murder, but with crimes such as rape the accusation never quite seems to go away.
I personally feel that more should be done to alleviate any feelings of guilt or shame associated with victimhood.
A more liberal attitude where victims felt supported enough to be open in public about their experiences would set an example where justice was more able to be achieved.
Ultimately issues surrounding sexual crimes are a reflection of attitudes toward power in society – abuse is the result of people who take advantage of inequality rather than seeking the psychological tools to develop healthy relationships.
Hi ATF, I don’t think that people find it harder to clear their name from being proven not guilty of rape compared with other crimes.
I think Simon McGrath makes a very good point saying surely it is only fair that if the accuser has the right to remain anonymous then so should the defendant.
I would have no major problem with disclosure being restricted until prosecution for all crimes. The very important thing is not to treat rape defendants differently to all other crimes because this helps peddle the horrible myth that women cry rape.
When push comes to shove, I agree with Stephen in being in favour of openness and transparency.
there is research by a man called Lisak. All those commenting in favour of anonymity because they think serial offenders are not common need to read it. And then read it again so it sinks in.
I, like many, sympatise with Stephen’s points, but find Graeme’s points to be the ones I agree with. The point about people coming forward in ‘high’ profile cases should not be ignored, but at the same time, high profile cases are generally a theme to themselves in the Law.
I agree with Grahame – there’s no reason why disclosure/anonymity can’t be done on a case by case basis, decided by a judge based on the circumstances and arguments from the police.
and no-one mentions the obvious, it all depends on how the media report it.! It can be clearly stated that this is an ubsubstantiated accusation, or can put next to a sleazy looking photo with the text full of innuendo, nudge-nudge.. The media need control, and standards of reporting to adhere to.. – freedom with responsibility.
“The media need control, and standards of reporting to adhere to.. – freedom with responsibility.”
Of course, that would be one advantage of a name being released only when a suspect is charged. Because of legal constraints the media are much more restrained in their reporting after a charge has been made.
At the risk of repeating what has been said by many others, I, too, sympathise with Stephen’s arguments but find Graeme’s more compelling. The principle of our criminal justice system that one is innocent until proven guilty is an excellent one. Unfortunately, far too many people just do not follow it in practice. That old adage “there’s no smoke without fire” is one a great many of us find irresistible; and, after all, why not? If the CPS believe that they have sufficient evidence that a conviction is more likely than not, then something suspect must have happened? There may be a perfectly innocent explanation but, more often than not, there isn’t. As such, those arrested or charged for offences, particularly sexual offences, are treated differently, and their name will forever be associated with the alleged offences thanks to the internet, regardless of the outcome of their case.
A presumption of anonymity, with applications for disclosure treated on a case-by-case basis with clear permission for disclosure in the circumstances Graeme has suggested sounds eminently sensible to me.
The importance of disclosure to get more victims to come forward is a vital one. Tragically, though, when the accused isn’t famous, the case is unlikely to be sufficiently newsworthy for other victims to be made aware of the now public accusation. (And of course in these cases the reputational damage is much less too.)
Surely there must be some way to lower the bar for the reporting of sex crimes in the first place. Even if a victim doesn’t want to bring a case to prosecution, even if you know you have insufficient evidence to prove anything, we still want a suitable agency to know, so that serial offenders can be identified. A phone call or an email, and it can go in the database.
To point out the part which seems to have eluded mention: there’s no reason why we can’t have both. Try the case before the court, under conditions of anonymity. If the accused is found to be guilty, then reveal their identity, to encourage others to come forward and maybe tack another few concurrent sentences on.
If the accused is found to be innocent, then we most certainly should not be encouraging a media fishing expedition into their personal life in hope of finding something that they can be convicted for. It is unjust and unjustifiable to treat an innocent person who was accused differently to all the other innocent people who weren’t accused.
“While it would of course be horrific to be falsely accused of rape, there’s no evidence that false accusations are more common in rape cases than in other types of crime.”
But it’s impossible to make anonymous allegation of rape for other types of crime – only for rape. It may be traumatic to be accused of other crimes, but you can’t do so anonymously. It’s this imbalance that reforms would address.
I struggle a lot with this issue. The recent ‘celeb’ cases of Stuart hall and aggro santos highlight both sides of the coin. The publicity surrounding Stuart hall’s charge empowered other victims to come forward and helping in achieving a conviction, however in the case of aggro santos a young man’s career and life has undoubtedly been damaged severely by the publicity around his rape case, which he has now been found innocent of all charges, but lets be clear his life will never get back to where it was before. @tony Dawson’s point about being found innocent is not the same thing as being falsely accused are not the same thing, for me perfectly highlighs the stigma attached to people who are found innocent. If being found innocent by a jury is not good enough to fully clear your name, then I really believe that naming dependents is a very dangerous game whereby the police and CPS somehow become quasi judicial. To be punished for a crime that you have been found innocent of can’t be right in a civilised society, regrettably guilty people will get off but in my opinion I’d rather see the guilty walk free than the innocent punished for crimes that they did not commit.