The injustice suffered by Cliff Richard in 2014 defied the maxim “words can never hurt you”. Anonymously accused of a sex crime, his good name was devastated by a publicity-seeking police force in collusion with a scoop-seeking BBC. Both later admitted fault and the BBC paid damages.

Similar calumny was visited on other public figures, including the broadcaster Paul Gambaccini, former MP Harvey Proctor and assorted VIPs. The police thus became judge and jury in effectively punishing people for a crime of which none had been convicted or even charged. Both Gambaccini and Proctor subsequently received official apologies.

The feeding frenzy of the internet is terrifying enough already without being fed by the British justice system

This week a petition is being raised for a parliamentary debate to end the rule, introduced in 2003, that those who accuse others of a sex crime can be anonymous for life, but those they accuse can be instantly named.

The rule was introduced to meet plausible complaints that rapes were being severely under-reported. There is evidence that accuser anonymity has indeed led to a rise in reporting sex crimes. But, as Gambaccini said on Monday, the imbalance of denying anonymity to the accused has breached two cardinal rules of natural justice. One is that those accused of a crime should not be named until formally charged, to protect them from casual or malicious falsity. The other, given the inevitable publicity, is that innocence be assumed until guilt is proven. The casual dismissal of both principles in the 2003 act was extraordinary.

Sex crimes are complicated by the fact that evidence is sometimes hard to come by. This is indeed an argument for making the accuser anonymous. But the case for instantly revealing the identity of the accused is poor. It is that other witnesses might recognise the name and come forward, thus aiding the prosecution in proceeding to a charge.

Paul Gambaccini calls for law change over 'false allegation crisis' Read more

That might apply to any crime. In the case of sex crimes, the clear risk is of massive reputational damage. Richard and Gambaccini are not arguing for an end to anonymity, only for pre-charge anonymity for the accused. The victims of the present injustice are not just VIPs, though they too are entitled to equity at law. Victims have included doctors, executives, the clergy, many ordinary people who have found their name stained, and lost their jobs and families.

Q&A What are the laws about maintaining anonymity in sex offence accusations? Show Hide All victims of rape and other sex crimes in England and Wales, including children, are automatically guaranteed anonymity for life from the moment they make a complaint that they are the victim of a sex crime. The law is different in Scotland, but the practice of respecting anonymity is the same. It is a criminal offence to publish the complainant's identity or any information that might lead to them being identified. People accused of rape and other sex offences can though be named. In the 1970s, anonymity for both rape complainants and defendants was put into law, though the anonymity for rape defendants was later repealed. The 2010 Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats proposed re-introducing anonymity for defendants. However, after examining the issue to propose legislation, the government concluded that there was insufficient reliable evidence to justify a change in the law. Those in favour of changing the law say that the stigma of being accused of rape is such that it has a devastating effect on the life of people subsequently found to be wholly innocent. Against this is set the argument that naming the defendant is important in allowing other potential victims and witnesses to come forward. One suggested alternative has been ensuring the anonymity of defendants in sexual offence cases, unless a judge orders a case-specific exception.

The ever-expanding legal realm of hate speech and causing offence accepts that words can hurt and harm. Reputations are as precious as heads, arms, legs and property. But the feeding frenzy of the internet is terrifying enough already without being fed by the British justice system. Pre-charge anonymity is a sound principle, one that parliament should now uphold.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

• This article was amended on 2 July 2019. The police search of Cliff Richard’s home took place in 2014, not 2017.