Should those accused of sexual assault remain anonymous pre-conviction?

[andyandy]

In the Uk we have anonymity accorded to those who accuse others of sexual assault - but there is no anonymity accorded to the individual accused. So if Person A accuses Person B of rape, Person B's name enters the public domain, whilst Person A remains anonymous - even if the claims are later found to be false.....

My question would be how this compares to other countries - and whether the UK system is necessary or if such is the stigma of being accused of sexual assault, the identity of the accused should not enter the public domain unless there is a conviction.....

A current story on the BBC raises a second question as to whether an accuser's anonymity would be/should be preserved even though they may be guilty of perjury.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/5339004.stm

A married man who was jailed for five years for a violent sex attack has been cleared on appeal after it emerged that his alleged victim made it up.
Warren Blackwell, 36, of Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, was convicted of indecently assaulting the woman after a New Year's Eve Party in 1998.

The Appeal Court said the conviction was unsafe after hearing that the complainant had an "ability to lie".

After the hearing Mr Blackwell said the ordeal had made him "a very angry" man.

In a statement he added: "I'd like to thank my family, mother and father who spent what to us was a massive amount of money to see this day come true.

[TragicMonkey]

The problem with anonymity in such cases is that it prevents other people from coming forward as witnesses. Previous victims, perhaps.

[andyandy]

The problem with anonymity in such cases is that it prevents other people from coming forward as witnesses. Previous victims, perhaps.

i take your point, but couldn't the existance of possible witnessess be left to the prosecution to investigate?

[TragicMonkey]

i take your point, but couldn't the existance of possible witnessess be left to the prosecution to investigate?

Oh, my. Faith in the legal system? I'm sorry to marvel, but I haven't seen that exhibited in decades.

[andyandy]

Oh, my. Faith in the legal system? I'm sorry to marvel, but I haven't seen that exhibited in decades.

lol :D

we have to have some faith - otherwise we may as well declare that no man (or woman) should ever be incarcerated.....

[marcais]

It's a hard one to call. Obviously the accusers name must be withheld. It's hard enough to get victims of sexual crimes to come forward as it is without inflicting the kind of publicity this would bring upon them.

And, as Tragic Monkey states, it would be much more difficult for the police to succesfully follow these cases theough if they are not allowed to appeal for witnesses, former victims, etc., where they feel the need.

However there have been a number of maliciously false claims, and even when these have been exposed as completely false, that will never get the same attention as the original claims. And, in a society that has seen paediatricians assaulted as their attackers get them confused with paedophiles, the stain of false claims will never be eradicated. There'll always be someone claiming "there's no smoke without fire".

Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't have a clue whether the way the law is here in the UK should be changed.

[Beerina]

It's a hard one to call. Obviously the accusers name must be withheld.

Until the trial, when it all becomes public because the accused gets his day in court, a public court, with the right to confront the witnesses against him.

[marcais]

When I say the accusers name has to be withheld I mean from media reporting.

Obviously the accused must know throughout the identity of the person accusing them. There's no way you could properly mount a defence unless you're in possession of all the information.

[andyandy]

Until the trial, when it all becomes public because the accused gets his day in court, a public court, with the right to confront the witnesses against him.

The accuser's name remains out of the public domain even during trial in the UK.....is that different to America?

[drkitten]

The problem with anonymity in such cases is that it prevents other people from coming forward as witnesses. Previous victims, perhaps.

That's not necessarily a compelling argument. Keeping the accuser anonymous similarly prevents other people from coming forward as witnesses against the complainant -- for example, people previously falsely accused (by that person).

[Trantor]

I'd like to know what happens to the person that has falsely accused someone? Especially when the accused has spent time in prison for something they didn't do. There should be some prison time for the accuser in such cases.

[tkingdoll]

I guess it depends how common false complaints are. Rape convictions are scant enough, so anything that discourages victims from coming forward is a bad move. Equally, anything that could potentially put another person at risk is a bad move, so if the accused name is in the public domain, the public can act on the knowledge of what he's accused of.

If it is the case that the majority of accused persons are not guilty, then it is a problem, yes.

[andyandy]

I'd like to know what happens to the person that has falsely accused someone? Especially when the accused has spent time in prison for something they didn't do.

I was under the impression that the lady in the OP example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/5339004.stm

will still remain anonymous - but as to whether she could be tried for perjury i don't know.....

like for like sentencing would seem fair - ie if you maliciously cause an individual to be imprisoned for 5 years then you should receive the same time in jail......

[Darth Rotor]

In the Uk we have anonymity accorded to those who accuse others of sexual assault - but there is no anonymity accorded to the individual accused. So if Person A accuses Person B of rape, Person B's name enters the public domain, whilst Person A remains anonymous - even if the claims are later found to be false.....

My question would be how this compares to other countries - and whether the UK system is necessary or if such is the stigma of being accused of sexual assault, the identity of the accused should not enter the public domain unless there is a conviction.....

A current story on the BBC raises a second question as to whether an accuser's anonymity would be/should be preserved even though they may be guilty of perjury.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/5339004.stm
Yes.

Trial by media in the case of the not guilty, and the innocent, end up destroying lives thanks to media-mob guilt association.

DR

[andyandy]

anything that could potentially put another person at risk is a bad move, so if the accused name is in the public domain, the public can act on the knowledge of what he's accused of.



but surely everyone should be regarded as innocent til proven otherwise....

[Crossbow]

Being falsely accused of any crime, rape or otherwise, is very difficult to deal with.

However, I do take some comfort in that if I am accused of a crime, then the data (including my name) will be on public record thereby my family, my business associates, my lawyer, my congressional representative, and so on will at least have some notification of the fact and can take steps accordingly.

Note: a real mark of a police state is when people accused of a crime and that data is kept secret as has been seen with people being held by the USA in Guantamo and elsewhere.

And later, if the charges turn out to be false, then I would do my best to get the accuser charged with perjury.

[Tailgater]

I will be interested to see how the lacrosse team rape scandal turns out. The attorneys have really used the media. Lots of lives have changed over it and not just the accused.

[drkitten]

And later, if the charges turn out to be false, then I would do my best to get the accuser charged with perjury.

My understanding is that this is a very difficult case to prove. Merely making false accusations is not in and of itself perjury -- the accuser has to know at the time they're making the accusation that they're false.

In the case of the OP :


On Tuesday, Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Silber, concluded his conviction was "unsafe", after a report from the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The commission referred to new evidence which gave rise to a "very real doubt" over whether the complainant was a victim of any assault at all.

The court was told the complainant had made "strikingly similar allegations" about other sex attacks, had an "ability to lie" and a possible propensity to self harm.

The court recommended that the complainant's details be shared with police forces across the country in case she tried to repeat the accusations.

Note that there's no actual proof that the accusation is false; it's merely a judgement call that the accuser wasn't very credible. (The conviction is "unsafe" and there is "doubt" about its validity.) But to establish perjury, the Crown would need to establish, not "doubt" about whether or not an assault had occurred, but proof positive that it hadn't..

Basically, Mr Blackwell was cleared because of the presumption of innocence. But the anonymous accuser would also be cleared because of the same presumption.

[Tailgater]

Note: a real mark of a police state is when people accused of a crime and that data is kept secret as has been seen with people being held by the USA in Guantamo and elsewhere.

The public typically does not see data on the crimes until during or sometimes after a trial in the US. The only point that can be made with Guan is that they are being held without trial. If you are innocent, it can sometimes be worse to be accused and the trial dropped then to be able to prove your innocence to the public in a court of law.

[Ian Osborne]

I was under the impression that the lady in the OP example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/5339004.stm
will still remain anonymous - but as to whether she could be tried for perjury i don't know.....

If she's convicted of perjury or conspiracy to pervert, her anonymity is lifted. I can't remember whether this applies on arrest but before the trial, though.

[drkitten]

The public typically does not see data on the crimes until during or sometimes after a trial in the US.

Um, no. They see some very crucial pieces of data -- that an arrest has been made, the date of the arrest (from which point a try-or-release clock starts ticking), the identity of the person arrested, and the charges upon which they are arrested (including the legal authority for doing so and the legal specifications of the chargeable behavior).


The only point that can be made with Guan is that they are being held without trial.

No. They're being held anonymously, without even being charged. There is no specified behavior of which they can answer. There is no timetable by which such a charge must be brought.

Et cetera.....

[Tailgater]

Um, no. They see some very crucial pieces of data -- that an arrest has been made, the date of the arrest (from which point a try-or-release clock starts ticking), the identity of the person arrested, and the charges upon which they are arrested (including the legal authority for doing so and the legal specifications of the chargeable behavior).


I misunderstood his point. I was following the false claims talk and was refering to data such as evidence and statements made by the accuser(s), and that public opinion is only based on the charges till trial.

No. They're being held anonymously, without even being charged. There is no specified behavior of which they can answer. There is no timetable by which such a charge must be brought.

Et cetera.....

Right. I was basing that off missing the first point. Example: Data relating to the case that is held from the public to not taint the trial.

[TragicMonkey]

That's not necessarily a compelling argument. Keeping the accuser anonymous similarly prevents other people from coming forward as witnesses against the complainant -- for example, people previously falsely accused (by that person).

Which is not an argument against not allowing the accused to remain anonymous, unless the legal system is like kindergarten in which both Jimmy and Suzy must receive cookies, or neither may.

[JamesDillon]

Never mind.

[drkitten]

Which is not an argument against not allowing the accused to remain anonymous, unless the legal system is like kindergarten in which both Jimmy and Suzy must receive cookies, or neither may.

Actually, it is. You just need to unpack it a bit.

The argument for accuser-anonymity is that the harm of rape stigma (being known as a person who was the victim of sexual assault) trumps the public interest in having the accuser's name be known.

The argument for accused-anonymity is that the harm of what I will call "rapist stigma" trumps the public interest in having the accused's name be known.

In either case, what's the "public interest"? Obviously, mere curiosity on the part of the Sun doesn't necessarily count for much -- but the interests of justice in general are much more important.

But why are they only more important when we're talking about the accuser, or not the accused? If you're suggesting that there's a reason that Jimmy should get a cookie, but not Suzy -- what's the reason?

[TragicMonkey]

But why are they only more important when we're talking about the accuser, or not the accused? If you're suggesting that there's a reason that Jimmy should get a cookie, but not Suzy -- what's the reason?

I didn't suggest anything of the kind. I didn't address the subject of the accuser's anonymity at all. As it happens, I don't think either party should remain anonymous. But since that seemed both off-topic and derailing, I didn't pursue it.

This is something that seems rare in the Politics forum, but it's true anyway: pointing out something about Item A does not suggest anything at all about Item B, whether the same thing, the opposite, or something differently. I don't think the accused should remain anonymous. I think Bill Clinton is a fat greasy jerk. I hate capri pants on men. Unaddressed are the topics of the accuser's anonymity, my feelings about George W Bush, and capri pants on women.

[JamesDillon]

I think George Bush would look very nice in capri pants.

[drkitten]

This is something that seems rare in the Politics forum, but it's true anyway: pointing out something about Item A does not suggest anything at all about Item B, whether the same thing, the opposite, or something differently.

Nonsense.

"Look, up in the sky! It has wings, so it must be a bird."

"Um, bats have wings, too. For that matter, so does a 747."

"Pointing out something about bats doesn't suggest anything about birds, silly."

[TragicMonkey]

I think George Bush would look very nice in capri pants.

I bet he has stick-legs.

[TragicMonkey]

Nonsense.

"Look, up in the sky! It has wings, so it must be a bird."

"Um, bats have wings, too. For that matter, so does a 747."

"Pointing out something about bats doesn't suggest anything about birds, silly."

"I like pudding."

"Why do you hate cake?"

[Luke T.]

The accuser's name remains out of the public domain even during trial in the UK.....is that different to America?

The whole planet knew Michael Jackson was accused of a sex crime well before his trial. So, yeah, it is different here.

Also, public disclosure of an accused's name is not limited to sex crimes. Any crime is fair game. Murder, robbery, singing country music. Accusation of any of these crimes will get your face on the news.

ETA: I see now you said accuser. I believe the rule here only applies to minors making the accusation, but I'm not sure.

[CFLarsen]

Oh, my. Faith in the legal system? I'm sorry to marvel, but I haven't seen that exhibited in decades.

I take it that you don't have faith in your legal system?

If so, are you drawing the consequences of what you are saying here?

[TragicMonkey]

I take it that you don't have faith in your legal system?

If so, are you drawing the consequences of what you are saying here?


You may take whatever you like. I suggest the exit. Help yourself.

[Almo]

Simple answer to question in title:

Hell yes.

Innocent until proven guilty. But someone with a string of sex offence aquittals starts to look guilty by association. If they just can't catch him, tough. That's the way a justice system has to work, or it's not justice.

[slingblade]

i take your point, but couldn't the existance of possible witnessess be left to the prosecution to investigate?

And how would one do that with the accused remaining anonymous?

"Say, Bob, while we have you here charged with raping Sue, would you care to tell us who else you've raped? No? Not even a little? Oh, come on. Be a sport. Pretty please?"

or

"Police tonight have arrested an unidentified man after an unidentified woman accused him of rape. Women having been raped by anyone in the past should contact the District Attorney's office on the off chance it's the same man, or wait for the DA to recover all rape reports for the last (X) years and contact them."

I dunno.......

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And how would one do that with the accused remaining anonymous?

"Say, Bob, while we have you here charged with raping Sue, would you care to tell us who else you've raped? No? Not even a little? Oh, come on. Be a sport. Pretty please?"

or

"Police tonight have arrested an unidentified man after an unidentified woman accused him of rape. Women having been raped by anyone in the past should contact the District Attorney's office on the off chance it's the same man, or wait for the DA to recover all rape reports for the last (X) years and contact them."

I dunno.......

Much the same as happens with their investigation of previous false allegations then?

Two things about this case worry me:

"The Commission had decided to refer the conviction after considering issues including new evidence relating to the credibility of a key prosecution witness and the disclosure of material by the prosecution. "

http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/NewsArchive/news_415.htm

Seems to suggest that the prosecution may have been aware of the history but chose not to disclose it to the defence. This seems to have been skipped over in the reports of the overturned conviction.

"The court recommended that the complainant's details be shared with police forces across the country in case she tried to repeat the accusations."

from the BBC report in the original post. On the radio it has been suggested that they may not be able to share this information due to the right to anonimity. Not sure if the court's recommendation is enough to enable them to do so.

[Ian Osborne]

The problem was she changed her name eight times, so it wasn't immediately clear that the police were dealing with a serial accuser.

Regarding not sharing information due to rights of anonymity, I'd be very surprised if that were true. The right to anonymity only prevents the media from publishing a victim's identity.

[CFLarsen]

You may take whatever you like. I suggest the exit. Help yourself.

That's rather rude.

You won't answer the question, then?

[TragicMonkey]

That's rather rude.

You won't answer the question, then?

I also suggest you take a hint.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The problem was she changed her name eight times, so it wasn't immediately clear that the police were dealing with a serial accuser.

Regarding not sharing information due to rights of anonymity, I'd be very surprised if that were true. The right to anonymity only prevents the media from publishing a victim's identity.

I hope you are right, but the reference is to non-disclosure of information, which suggests relevant information WAS available but not provided.

I would be staggered if it were true. But that was what was being reported.

[Ian Osborne]

I hope you are right, but the reference is to non-disclosure of information

Bloody hell, I went to school with the guy who issued that press release!

[CFLarsen]

I also suggest you take a hint.

Well, making sweeping statements about not having faith in your own legal system should carry with it at least some form of explanation what you are then going to do.

E.g., since you don't have faith in your legal system, how do you cope with crime happening to you? You can't call the cops, and you can't hire a lawyer.

[Ian Osborne]

E.g., since you don't have faith in your legal system, how do you cope with crime happening to you? You can't call the cops, and you can't hire a lawyer.

This does not follow. Having no faith in the legal system doesn't imply that it's completely valueless. Besides, you might have to report a crime for insurance purposes, whether or not you expect an arrest and conviction to follow.

[Checkmite]

Are we talking about "anonymity" in the sense of the news media not being allowed to print names before a conviction? Given the stigma so many would place on such a person even if he is acquitted, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to request anonymity.

On the other hand, it would make for some oddly abstract news stories. "Some person was accused of rape by some other person today..."

[TragicMonkey]

Well, making sweeping statements about not having faith in your own legal system should carry with it at least some form of explanation what you are then going to do.

E.g., since you don't have faith in your legal system, how do you cope with crime happening to you? You can't call the cops, and you can't hire a lawyer.

Since you're reading minds, please read mine to receive your answer.

[Crossbow]

My understanding is that this is a very difficult case to prove. Merely making false accusations is not in and of itself perjury -- the accuser has to know at the time they're making the accusation that they're false.

In the case of the OP :


Indeed, perjury can be difficult to prove.

However, it can also be rather easy to prove (just ask Mark Furman).


Note that there's no actual proof that the accusation is false; it's merely a judgement call that the accuser wasn't very credible. (The conviction is "unsafe" and there is "doubt" about its validity.) But to establish perjury, the Crown would need to establish, not "doubt" about whether or not an assault had occurred, but proof positive that it hadn't..

Basically, Mr Blackwell was cleared because of the presumption of innocence. But the anonymous accuser would also be cleared because of the same presumption.

Again, you are quite right.

However, I would still rather take my chances on my name being besmirched with false charges than take my chances with a state that could arrest, arraign, and keep me in jail without any public record of these actions.