Sex accused 'should get anonymity'

[Bald Bouncer]

Suspects in sex cases should have their identities protected until they are convicted, a senior lawyer has said.


When a defendant is convicted "everything should be
open" says Maura McGowan

Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, said defendants should get the same right to anonymity as complainants.

She wants the change because sexual allegations carry "such a stigma".

But the charity Rape Crisis said anonymity for defendants would discourage people from reporting sex crimes and "victimise victims further".

Ms McGowan told the Stephen Nolan Show on BBC Radio 5 live: "Until they have been proven to have done something as awful as this, I think there is a strong argument in cases of this sort - because they carry such stigma with them - to maintain the defendant's anonymity.

"But once the defendant is convicted then of course everything should be open to scrutiny and to the public."

Jo Wood, of the charity Rape Crisis, said it would "never condone" anonymity for defendants in sex cases.

"There are so many barriers to victims reporting sexual violence," she said.

"Hiding the name of their perpetrator is just one more way to victimise victims further."

Ms McGowan said there were arguments on both sides. When anonymity had been accorded to defendants before "there was a sense that perhaps it was affording too much protection to people. There is obviously a public interest in open justice - people would say they're entitled to know not simply who's convicted, but who's been accused."

In cases like that of Jimmy Savile, she added, it might be that "if one complainant comes forward against a person, it might give other people who don't know her - but who went through the same experience - the courage to come forward as well."

Also on the show, Terry Harrison, who was falsely accused of rape five years ago, said: "I contemplated taking my own life on a couple of occasions, I was on the Middlesbrough bridge, I couldn't believe what was happening.

'I'm still judged'

"If a person has done such a heinous crime then they should be named and shamed, I agree - but not until they have been done for it.

"I was guilty until I was proven innocent and even when I was proven innocent I'm still getting judged."

But Jill Saward, campaigner for victims' rights and a rape victim herself, said: "When you have anonymity for a rapist or potential rapist, you protect him, you make him what people believe to be a safe person to be with."

The treatment of those involved in sex cases has gained attention recently following the apparent suicide of Frances Andrade, 48, after giving evidence at the trial of Michael Brewer.

Plans to restore anonymity to rape defendants were included in the 2010 coalition agreement but the scheme was dropped later that year. Ministers said there was "not enough evidence" to justify the move.

Anonymity was granted to rape defendants under the 1976 Sexual Offences Act but removed in 1988.

BBC News

[DelTrotter]

Big Savvers couldnt give a fuck but, Theres a big difference, between accused, arrested, convicted and prosecuted . So with Peadogeddon and the proles love of reading and ruining a persons career and life over the first step, Of course it should.

Disgrace it was abolished in the first place tbh.

'Thought police' in Britain will not let it happen thou. The ultimate framer and weapon for them.

[4me2]

Anonymity was granted to rape defendants under the 1976 Sexual Offences Act but removed in 1988.

The only people benefitting from this were the press and some agencies trying to justify their existance by alarmist headlines.

How can anyone expect to get a neutral jury in court if months before the accused has been demonised in the press ?

[blaggard]

One of the biggest iniquities in the British 'Justice' system and the sooner both parties are given anonymity the better.

[DJ OD]

She must have heard me saying that...

I've been saying it for ages. In most cases the fact the person is guilty or not is irrelavant. The persons family and friends will be branded as a result.

Most recently the bloke from It's A Knockout.


DJ OD

[flumperino]

Look what happened to Matthew Kelly. He was never charged, but accusations completely destroyed his career.

[Mr Men]

Look what happened to Matthew Kelly. He was never charged, but accusations completely destroyed his career.

Very true Theres no smoke without fire

Just look at Jimmy Saville and the mess he left behind

[Thrush]

Jimmy had the BBC to cover his tracks.

[blaggard]

Look what happened to Matthew Kelly. He was never charged, but accusations completely destroyed his career.

His career was never the same but arguably better, instead of fluff he has done some very good and critically acclaimed serious acting.

[burner1]

It's too one sided to 'protect' those who make the allegations. It should apply to both parties. Who's to say that because it's currently the way it is, some people haven't simply made up an allegation to get at someone out of spite/ revenge etc. even knowing it's not enough to get past the CPS because they will get named by the press - damage done.

It's hypocritical to say we live by innocence till proven guilty with laws like this.

[AD]

The thing that gets me, is the accused is put out to slaughter by the press (Guilty or not) and the accuser is protected by law. Now if the accused is found not guilty why isnt the name published of the false accuser?

Stinks to high heaven.

[DJ OD]

Very true Theres no smoke without fire

Just look at Jimmy Saville and the mess he left behind

Thing with Jimmy Saville, is he's dead. So who is being made to suffer? His friends and family who are more likely innocent.


DJ OD