To think some changes to the law on suspect's accused with sexual offences are needed.

[11122aa]

I am a sexual assault survivor.
After the cliff Richard verdict am I wrong to think that people should not be named when investigated for sexual offences. Or even when charged. Or even naming the accuser as does happen in some countries abroad if there is a not guilty verdict?

Um nobody has said that rape prosecutions are low because of the fact most victims are women and most perps are men rale

People have pointed out (quite correctly too) that there is a lot of stigmitised crime out there yet the only one where people insist suspects should be given anonymity is the one where most perps are men and most victims are women.

That is not the same as saying prosecutions are low because of sexism FFS.

I don't think it matters what the alleged crime is, nobody should be named until charged. I don't even think you should be named until proven guilty.

As for the argument that other people will come forward if the suspect has been named for goodness sake. If you're the victim of a crime then report it. Don't wait for other people to do it and then hang on their coat tails. In fact it is extremely dodgy that crimes are tried in one go. It's clearly cheaper to do that, but being accused by several people is clearly going to make the jury more likely to convict than if only accused by one. I'm not sure it's really in the interests of a fair trial and kind of goes against the idea that you're not allowed to know about previous convictions. So you're not allowed to know about previous convictions but are allowed to know about concurrent allegations. Hmmm.

Do you think Oscar Pistorius's name should have been suppressed in the media until he was found guilty?

Nobody has said that men are never the victims of sex crimes and women are never the perps either rale . People have used the word majority. That is not the same thing at all.

I am also well aware that women have been falsely accused yet I still think it's a goo idea to name suspects. Even if there was a sudden increase in the amount of women committing sex crimed tomorrow I would still think allowing anonymity was a bad idea. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Also not sure what your point about the men you know who help victims is. Nobody is condeming all men. People are condeming rapists. Big difference.

Yes because it's just that easy to report a sex crime name isn't it? It's just so bloody easy to go to the police station and say that your husband/boyfriend/friend has just raped you isn't it? Ffs.

Also it's easy to say that if you're a victim of a crime then you should report it but that only works if you know that what happened to you is a crime.

People already have a perception of what rape is - it is supposed to be violent, it happens by a stranger in a dark alley, etc. A woman may not instantly realise that she has been raped if her experience didn't fit her perception of what rape is.It takes some women years to realise they've been raped.

namechangeparents - trying multiple cases together can be valid if you're trying to establish a pattern of behaviour, or what in the USA especially is termed a signature (those aspects of a crime that are for the offender's needs as opposed to 'necessary' for the commission of the crime). Making use of such a strategy can be as detrimental to obtaining a conviction as it can be beneficial, a clear and strong pattern makes a case stronger but questions about the links can result in a 'one out, all out' result.

Considering one of the accusers of Cliff Richard is apparently a serial false accuser I don't think their is much change of the law not changing. When it is Unknown victims v High Profile people the public opinion will be high profile person unless the police are allowed to give specific case examples of when naming has worked.

I wish I could understand why so many women are worried about the impact on a very few men, and seem to think that it should take precedence of the needs of very many women.......

BertrandRussell - I don't think either should have precedence over the other, that's why I openly admit to struggling.

As to why I'm concerned about the impact on those innocent men who are affected, it's because I've seen the damage up close. I've watched one friend recover in hospital from both his original injuries and the subsequent surgeries he has needed, I've watched him battle depression and anxiety to the point of being suicidal, I've seen a strong, intelligent, honourable, fun loving man lose his home (due to safety issues), most of his friends (they believed his accuser right up until she was convicted) his relationships with a chunk of his family (would you trust an accused rapist around your child?) and most of his self esteem.

I would have to be lacking any kind of heart, conscience or emotional maturity to not be affected and concerned.

The suggestion to not name defendants in court is ludicrous. One of the main tenets of open justice is not only that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done. You cannot have courts sitting in secret.

If defendants weren't named, then journalists would simply not turn up to court, except in very high profile cases. The many hundreds of rape cases in our crown courts up and down the land would never be covered. Local newspapers simply do not have the resources to send a reporter out for weeks to a case of AbVCd in the hope that they will be convicted and will be named at the end of it. Rape cases will go the same way as youth courts and family courts where defendants can't be named: they will simply be ignored.

There's a case for not naming defendants until charge (although I still don't agree they should be anonymous). There is no case for not being able to name them during a trial.

That's fucking offensive name.
I've told this story before under a different name but I'm going to tell it again. When I was a teen I was abused by someone in a position of authority. I didn't tell anyone because he was in his 60s, I thought he was a sad old man and I was embarrassed and thought I'd led him on. He did a great job of grooming. A few years later the police came to see me because he'd been reported for something that turned out comparatively minor and they were following up.

Eventually he was prosecuted for numerous offences over a twenty year period, with multiple victims aged between ten and sixteen.

If there was offender anonymity I would never have reported this as I wouldn't have been approached by the police. The original complaint didn't get taken further as it wasn't a crime, more a concern (it would be a crime of grooming now I guess). He would have carried on offending against children.

Any law to protect offender anonymity will protect paedophiles like him alongside the very few innocently accused men. I am genuinely scared for the girls and women who will be abused if this is made law.

The tone of this is always about the man who is falsely accused by a vindictive person. That is awful. But in my opinion not as awful as failing to take every chance to prevent sexual abuse.

What happened to your friend is utterly awful.

But "hard cases make bad law" I am afraid.

Personally I think the John Warboys case is a bad example of why suspects should be named. Did the victims even know his name? Publicising the circumstances of those attacks should had been enough for victims to come forward.
zad I suspect they recognised Warboys from a photo, not a name. Photos would also not be allowed with a change to the law.
In the Warboys case, if his name/photo weren't allowed and someone recognised the description as similar to their attacker, how would they report it? Phone up their local station and say - I just read about a rapist on page 4 of the telegraph and I think he might have raped me too? What does the police force do with that? Do they have to keep tabs on what information has been published where? Or employ people to rush out and check the papers? It's ridiculously inefficient....

I wonder if it would be more difficult to get jurors? Don't you have to be unknowledgeable about the case in question?

I think there are lots of reasons why it's difficult to prove rape especially when there is only one word against another.

On balance for our justice system I would rather the guilty go free than the innocent be convicted.

Whether or not someone goes free has nothing to do with anonymity for the accused.

But "hard cases make bad law" I am afraid.

True, but you asked about the reasons for the concern about the impact a false allegation has - what happened to my friend is why I am concerned and conflicted. Am I unreasonable for having my views shaped by what I have witnessed?

You aren't unreasonable for having your views shaped by what you see.

My views are certainly shaped by knowing family members and friends who have been sexually assaulted and raped. Not feeling safe, being told what to wear and how to behave, knowing that the majority of women I know have been harassed, assaulted and abused at various levels since puberty and before. Working in homelessness and addiction and seeing how common rape and sexual assault are.

Not even bothering to report the low-level assaults and harassment that I have experienced. Because goodness knows nothing will happen.

MrsTerryPratchett - there is undoubtedly a huge amount that goes unreported, not to mention the injustices in the courtroom (either incorrect verdicts or paltry sentences).

At this point, I'm afraid I have little faith in the system - the innocent are not protected and the guilty are often not punished. I'm sorry to hear you have friends and family who have been abused/assaulted.

I am not sure where I am on the sexual crimes debate, I think Police definitely need to make sure they balance out the prospect of there being more victims (and so contact the media) with the likelyhood of the suspect having a fair trial or a life after a false accusation.

In terms of other crimes though, I think far too much information is given to the media by various sources and far too much is disclosed by the Police to them.

If something like a murder happens and the Police catch or name the suspect then they should be named and that is it. I don't think thhe Police or Media should describe the gory details of the crime until the crime is in court and can be reported on.

There have been many, many cases throughout history in the UK and the USA where by the time a case has come to court there has been so much media attention about the suspect is near impossible to get a fair trial. So much so that when selecting jurors they have trouble finding any that don't already think the suspect is guilty, before the trial has started!

So yes for serious crimes the Police should say what the charge is and who they have arrested / are looking for. That is it, nothing given to the media and they have to wait until details are given to the court.

This would hopefully mean jurors can make a balanced decision on just the evidence, rather than being pre-influenced by all the interviews and articles in the media that will see over and over again before a trial.

I think the police should wait longer than they did with Cliff Richard before making it public, and also that the raid on his house before there was a charge was wrong.

But once the police believe someone is a serious suspect they need to make it public so other people who were raped by the same person are encouraged to come forward. It probably was not a one off.

Clement Freud was dead when his victim told what happened to her, but the third victim and possibly the second only came forward once it was all out in the open. A witness to the the first woman's abuse also was willing to talk.

He was so famous no one would have dared before.
www.itv.com/hub/exposure-abused-and-betrayed-a-life-sentence/2a4644

Judging by the front page of the mail today I will be surprised if the law doesn't end up getting changed quite soon. Either a ban on naming before charge or even conviction and/or a statutory reporting time limit will unfortunately be introduced because they do have public support. Id estimate the likelihood of no change at about 10% as public opinion is very strongly in favour of change sadly.

On another note, convicted rapist Ched Evans has been signed to a football club. So even rapists damned from their own mouths can get work. As he hugs his wife and child and enjoys the love of his family and support of his fans. His life is so ruined.

If the law is changed we can look forward to an even more minuscule conviction rate. Hurrah for the patriarchy.

Well said, MrsTerryPratchett.

The interview with Cliff where I suspect will call for a law change is on Loose women tomorrow. Unlikely any of the panellists will oppose the law change on air when they debate it.