Michael Le Vell: Innocent, but named and shamed. Exactly WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials?

Father-of-two left 'fighting for his life' in both legal circus and media scrum

Why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men STILL denied the right to anonymity before a guilty verdict?

Men's rights campaigner and writer Peter Lloyd says it is time the 'unjust' legal system was overhauled



After two years of allegations and a gruesome eight-day trial, Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell was finally exonerated from some of the worst crimes imaginable yesterday.



The jury at Manchester Crown Court took just five hours to clear the 48-year-old of twelve sex offences against a young girl, including five of rape.



The father-of-two had been left ‘fighting for his life’ in both a legal circus and a media scrum.

Michael Le Vell: Innocent, but named and shamed. Exactly WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials?, asks Peter Lloyd

In his willingness to co-operate, he revealed his private self for public scrutiny: a ‘troubled man’ who chain-smoked, drank up to 12 pints a night, had a string of one-night stands and an affair with a younger woman while his wife had cancer treatment.

Now, he is free.



But, like thousands of men all over the world, Le Vell’s life has already been destroyed by a system which considers men’s innocence a bonus - not a baseline. And it has to end.



The case not only proved that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterated a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a guilty verdict?



It is - quite frankly - inhumane and has no place in a civilised society.



Naturally, the Crown Prosecution Service defended the case being brought to trial, saying: ‘It is for the jury to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not and we of course respect the verdicts they have reached today.’



But the CPS is not middle England.



Regardless of yesterday’s ruling, millions of onlookers will favour their own agenda-driven conclusion to that of an informed jury.



Haters across the world will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male. Or working class. Or an alcoholic. Perhaps even all three. They will gather around the water cooler and say: ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ or ‘he looks the type’.



This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why a court of law, not a casual observer who is not armed with all the evidence, should convict a defendant.



Haters across the world, including some of the most sexist women in journalism, will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male

Let’s be clear: Le Vell is not a man I would like to befriend, nor do I condone much of his behaviour.



But my heart went out to him yesterday.



For all his faults, for all his demons, he is a victim of our politically correct (yet morally incorrect) legal system. A creaking, dilapidated machine which has scant regard for men’s rights and the immortality of a rape allegation.



Earlier this year, one of the legal profession’s most prominent women - deputy High Court judge Maura McGowan - agreed. She recommended that men be granted pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials as standard.



Tellingly, her opinion is held by the majority of Britain. In 2010, a poll conducted by MailOnline showed that 67 per cent of readers want pre-conviction anonymity for rape defendants, as opposed to 33 per cent who don’t.



Originally, the law agreed. In 1976, the Labour government introduced anonymity for both the alleged victim and the accused. It operated this way until 1988, when guidelines were relaxed to help police investigations.



At the time, the media was far less powerful, less global, less permanent than it is today. There was no internet, no gossip magazines, no mobile phones and no social networking sites. Police techniques and technology were also less refined, so a lack of anonymity helped them.



Now, things are different. Dramatically so. And - once again - the law should change to reflect this.

Why? Because a ‘not guilty’ verdict is no longer enough to repair the planet-sized crater of damage caused by weeks of daily headlines across the globe.



Perhaps more importantly, it’s also a human right to be innocent until proven guilty.



Suspiciously, feminists like Julie Bindel disagree.



In fact, she once said being falsely accused wasn’t so bad. 'A fair number of celebrities have been accused of rape in the past and do not seem to have suffered longer term,' she wrote in the Guardian. 'To say that an accusation ruins lives is perhaps a sweeping generalisation.'



Perhaps she should speak to Peter Bacon. In 2009, he was cleared by a jury in just 40 minutes after being falsely accused of rape by a woman he met through a one-night stand. Although he was exonerated, the incident was so traumatic that he changed his name and left the country. His life was utterly destroyed.



Meanwhile, the accuser kept her anonymity - and, for all we know, went on to accuse others. Where’s the fairness in that?



'For all his faults, for all his demons, he is a victim of our politically correct (yet morally incorrect) legal system. A creaking, dilapidated machine which has scant regard for men’s rights and the immortality of a rape allegation'



Less than one year ago, in December 2012, the former boyfriend of Amy Winehouse suffered a similar situation when he was the subject of a malicious, fictitious allegation. Reg Traviss was eventually acquitted - but only after his name had been tarnished and his character assassinated.



During the case, London’s Southwark Crown Court heard that his accuser was ‘so drunk she couldn’t stand up or walk’ - but CCTV footage secured by Traviss’ brother (not the police) proved otherwise.



Had it not been for this auspicious turn, he would’ve been serving a ten-year sentence.



‘It was absolute torture being locked in a glass box in court listening to shocking lies being said about you,’ he told The Sun. ‘I was so close to my life being over - and I had done nothing wrong.’



His lawyer, Ian Winter QC, added: ‘What is unbelievable is that if we hadn’t found them coming out of the club on CCTV, which the police had totally failed to identify, there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice.’



That’s because not every allegation is true. And, sadly, not every case that reaches court deserves to be there.



Even UK charity Rape Crisis admit that almost five per cent of rape allegations are fake - 'exactly the same as any other crime' . This means that countless men will be named and shamed in the media. Simply because they are male - not because they are guilty.

It goes without saying that I despise rape - I despise any crime of that ilk. But what I equally hate is injustice. And, contrary to yesterday's verdict, that's exactly what has been handed to Michael Le Vell

To say this doesn’t matter is not only insane, but dangerous. It also smacks of a darker gender agenda.



Ironically, women like Julie Bindel are enraged at the concept of pre-conviction anonymity, yet so few of them are equally outraged by the false accusers who betray the sisterhood (and the real victims of rape - both male and female) with their lies. Yet these women are damaging rape justice more than pre-conviction anonymity ever could.



Yes, I sympathise that not every case is reported. I also sympathise that not every victim gets justice. But none of these facts validate the hell imposed on innocent sons, brothers, fathers and boyfriends every single day.



Even Labour peer Lord Corbett, who introduced the 1976 law providing mutual pre-conviction anonymity, argued this until his death in February 2012. He told the Evening Standard in 2002: ‘Rape is a uniquely serious offence and acquittal is not enough to clear a man in the eyes of his family, community or workplace. He is left with this indelible stain on his reputation. The case for matching anonymity for the defendant is as strong now as ever’.



He was right in life and he’s right in death.



Besides, the benefit of mutual anonymity would cut across both genders, helping victims as well as conserving fair trials. For a start, it would deter anyone from making false claims out of spite, seeing the accuracy of convictions rise - not fall.



Secondly, it could make testifying easier for those who’ve come forward. Identifying the accused often inadvertently identifies the victim, which adds immense pressure for them. It’s all wrong.



The issue is made even more complex when our government officials muddy the waters of truth.



In 2010, an official enquiry report led by Baroness Stern - a prison reform campaigner - ordered Harriet Harman to stop misleading the public about rape statistics. For years she’d been pumping misinformation that only six per cent of rapists are brought to justice, when the reality is very different. It is much higher.



But Harman’s creepy spin is symptomatic of another problem, because the way we criminalise men in these situations seems to have become political, rather than judicial.

Instead of securing robust, fair trials, people now want a system were woman have all the power - and men are on the back foot - as if this would guarantee justice. It won’t.



Our modern-day legal system should not be throwing men to the lions in a bid to prove it opposes rape. It is not a PR exercise for the police or the CPS. It is peoples’ lives.



It goes without saying that I despise rape – I despise any crime of that ilk. But what I equally hate is injustice. And, contrary to yesterday’s verdict, that’s exactly what has been handed to Michael Le Vell.



Sadly, there are thousands of other men who, unbeknown to them, are next in line.

