Anonymity for defendants in sex offence cases

I thought your readers might be interested in a response I received from Maria Eagle MP regarding anonymity for suspected rapists. It addresses the stance of the current government and will undoubtedly answer what many have wanted to ask. The response won’t put closure to the matter, as Maria Eagle thinks, for many will agree and many will not. My own view is that there is gender discrimination at judicial level and this response backs up my claims about our so called ‘equal rights’ and ‘equality’. * Maria Eagle MP writes: The issue of anonymity for defendants in sex offence cases has been a talking point over several years and changes in administration. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 provided for a ban on the press identification of both complainants and defendants in rape cases. Anonymity for complainants had been recommended by the Heilbron Committee (in their 1975 Report), due to the potential harm and distress caused by publicity, which could discourage complainants from bringing proceedings. The Committee did not consider that defendants in rape cases should have anonymity, as the incentive for victims to report crimes of rape (so as to ensure the rapists did not escape prosecution) did not apply to them. Anonymity for defendants in sexual offence cases was repealed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It is important to note that the restrictions had caused practical difficulties: for example, if a man escaped custody before conviction, the police could not warn the public he was a suspected rapist unless the judge exercised his power to lift the reporting restrictions. There have been suggestions that investigations of allegations of sex offences should be conducted without publicity until there is evidence of guilt, and the Government agrees that this would be an effective way of dealing with the problem. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) also favour this approach and in December 2000, they issued guidance to all police forces, applying to all offences, which makes it clear that anyone under investigation, but not charged, should not be named, or details provided, which might lead to their identification before they are charged. The courts do have powers to act under the Contempt of Court Act, if there is a particular need to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to proceedings. In such cases, the court may order the postponement of the publication of any report of those proceedings for whatever period the court considers necessary. In addition, where a court decides to withhold a name from the public during the trial, the court has power to prohibit publication of that name. However, mindful of the need to preserve the principle of open justice, the courts have held that this power should only be used in limited circumstances, such as the safeguarding of the identity of children and young persons, witnesses who might later be exposed to violence or blackmail, or revelation of whose identity might prejudice national security. The identification of victims by the media is only prohibited in sexual offence cases, and lasts for their lifetime. This is because many victims of these crimes would simply not come forward if they thought their identity might be revealed. However, even in these cases, the court has the power to lift the prohibition on publicity if it is necessary to encourage witnesses to come forward and the defence is likely to be prejudiced if it stays in place, or it would unreasonably restrict reporting and it is in the public interest to remove or relax the prohibition. The law also allows the reporting of criminal proceedings other than for the relevant offences. So, for example, the complainant’s protection from identification would not extend to any proceedings for perjury or wasting police time following a false or malicious allegation. The Government’s position is that anonymity should not be extended to defendants in sex offence cases. During the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill there was an unsuccessful attempt to introduce an amendment which would have provided defendants in rape cases with the same anonymity rights as are currently given to complainants. The Government’s view is that informed and strengthened guidance to the police and the media is preferable to legislation.

