Do Ireland have it right?

[Burntout93]

To have anonymity for rape defendants until conviction?

Hard one. I would say no.

Reasons:

1. Naming defendants makes more victims and witnesses come forward. The scandals of John Warboys and child abuse cases mean it is sometimes the media giving out names which make more people come forward once they realise they will now actually be believed.

1. When the police and authorities don't do their job properly as they are too eager to secure a conviction but ignore evidence such as mobile phone messages, it is easier for an all ready named defendant to go to the media. Then use them to help seek redress and a system change as they have already been exposed. If they were anonymous they would have to be very brave to wipe that anonymity.

Unfortunately anyway I could think of policing the naming of rape defendants e.g. giving the judiciary more powers to say whether someone should be named is open to similar prejudice the police suffered from in the Warboys' case.

But they don't have to use the media to seek redress. They can just go to the Garda Ombudsman to get the case reopened. They can lodge an appeal to the Courts etc. They simply do not need public notoriety.

I think there should be annonymity for the accused and the accuser in sex cases until and if the accused is found guilty.

I was firmly on the side of anonymity for the rapist too.

Now I realise that if it is a fairly sure bet that that person has done this before, probably by choosing people who are too vulnerable to report, their name being out there and someone stepping forward may encourage others to, may bring everything out of the shadows, and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

It is really difficult and actually I don't think that the police actively release/push out names unless there is a likelihood that could be the case and on the whole day to day the media aren't interested.

What is a bigger issue is the "social media" reports by celebrities or others. Where people are accused and denounced publicly with NO police report being made at all. That's wrong.

I always thought that was to protect the anonymity of the victim, as in some cases the victim waives the right to anonymity so the defendant can be named. That may only be after a guilty verdict though, I'm not sure.

Absolutely anonymity for all involved until found guilty. Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

I agree with absolute anonymity for all parties that should only be lifted (for the accused) in the even of a guilty convictions.

The reason I think this is because we have legal systems that presume innocence until proven otherwise. If someone's name is mentioned and even if they are found to be innocent, there will always be a 'no smoke without fire' approach from people.

With the internet and social media that would be inescapable forever- a person could move house/country etc but they would still be traceable. It seems unfair given a person's right to their own good name.

Take Michael Le Vell (fella who plays Kevin from Coronation Street). Found innocent of all charges, but you google his name...

If found guilty, name and shame away- but I personally think that in the interests of a fair trial that anonymity should be preserved until conviction.