I think current media law regarding sexual assault trials has a chilling effect, but don't know what to do about it

[ethelb]

If a trial is held to prosecute an alleged rapist or sexual assult perpetrator and their victim is a relative, then the fact that that the defendant is a relative of the victim is normally not reported as it could identify the victim.

I believe it is right to protect the victims of these crimes, but I also believe the law has a chilling effect on the prosecution of non-stranger rapists as I don't think the public, who eventually become jurors, are aware of how many sexual assult and rape cases are due to relatives and friends/partners, as it is not reported due to media laws.

This leads to a belief that more rape cases than is the case are stranger rape cases as these are the only rape cases where the details of how the defendant and the victim 'met' can be reported.

I am a journalist (though don't do criminal court reporting) and so is my DP. He does lots of court reporting and honestly, well over half of all the sexual assault cases involve close relatives of the victims and many more involve friends and partners. But he can't report this as he can't identify the victims by identifying their relationship with the named defendant.

He has said that you can write for example "A man has been accused of raping his step-daughter...." as long as you don't name them, but this is not done often as court lists are public, and as coverage needs to include information about the date, and the court and the charges, people could work backwards from the court lists to identify the defendant and therefore the victim.

While I think the protection of the victim is paramount I can't help feeling that not reporting the full details of the case, as media law currently requires on occassion, potentially prevents the public and potential jurors from educating themselves about the realities of rape and sexual assault crime. What should be done?

[Bluebelljumpsoverthemoon]

It's a hard one, you don't want to discourage incest victims from coming forward by having a system where they could be publicly identified against their wishes by reporting but the public have not only a right to know but a need to know about the realities of sexual abuse.

Perhaps cases could be reported in detail but leaving out the courts location? That way nobody would know that x case they're reading about is the neighbour down the road because they wouldn't know it was a local case therefore no digging.

[ethelb]

Thats a really good idea. But when you name someone standard practice is you say John Smith of Greenville so as to avoid implicating other John Smiths. And you cant go around implicating every John Smith in the country for legal reasons.
Ie if an ethelb was charged with sonething in Newcastle courts want it to be clear it wasnt the ethelb in Manchester iyswim

[ethelb]

Plus journalists couldnt sell it to lical news, or use it in local news (u could narrow down which court it was from in many local rags) and journos need to eat. The press is not a charitable cause.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

In Scotland, the court roll lists the date and the court, along with the name of the accused, but no details about the charges. Is this different in rUK, and could adopting this system help?

[ethelb]

In England it has the charges. Interesting that they leave them off in Scotland. I wonder if anyone has studied the difference in reporting stranger rape in England and Scotland and whether this is considered to make a difference by media lawyers.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

Actually, thinking about it, the online court roll doesn't list the charges, but it does list the case number. I honestly don't know if you can turn up at court and ask to see a paper list; I'll ask when I'm in on Monday. (Co-incidentally doing jury duty atm, I'm not in the habit of hanging around my local court!)

[ethelb]

oldlady in England you can ask to see the paper list. Traditionally that's how journalists worked ie turn up, ask for list, pick which trials to report on.

[summerflower]

I think this is an interesting point. I was raped when I was asleep by a former partner who happened to be staying the weekend. This was some years ago, and this will sound stupid, but I did not realise it was rape - because it was not a stranger and it did not happen down a dark alley. I had agreed to him staying, I knew him, there was no force, I just woke up, I did not connect what had happened with my understanding of rape.

I was distraught, I remember walking the streets afterwards looking for my boyfriend who was not at his flat, but I did not connect what had happened with rape. (I didn't tell my boyfriend when I found him, in the end, he was in one of the local pubs reading, and how do you start that conversation?)

And then when I realised many years later, I felt stupid, amongst everything else. Really stupid for not realising. I know that does not answer the question of what should be done.

It is okay, I know I was not stupid, just un-educated, so maybe it is about education.

[ethelb]

Im so sorry to hear that summerflower. That is terrible.

I think the sheer scale of the number of non-stranger rape cases in the courts is not something the public are aware of. And when you think how much evidence is needed to get a case to court the number that dont even get that far must be tremendous