Oh no, not Matthew Kelly too!

[mears]

What a shock tonight on the news - Matthew Kelly accused of child abuse in the 1970's. What if it isn't true - the man's career is ruined. If it is true, what else has he done?
How do you explain to your kids about the nice man from Stars in Their Eyes?

SD ? I think reporting restrictions apply only after someone has actually been charged with an offence. If they're just being "questioned", you can make any kind of speculation you like about them (so long as it's not libellous).

I think giving total anonymity to all those charged of a crime unless found guilty would be a terribly dangerous way to go. I can not only see all sorts of practical problems but it would overturn centuries of free reporting of the course of justice. I think the ramifications would be enormous. If you don't want all defendants to be anonymous then I have to ask why should those accused of sex offences be given special and preferential treatment? I find it interesting that the charging of a celebrity causes such an outpouring of sympathy, BTW.

On the separate matter of 'false accusations' these are very, very rare, even thought they are very widely publicised. The fact this, more than 9 out of ten rapists get away with it as it is. They thrive on anonymity, as do child abusers. Many have been tried over and over again but got off over and over again. It often turns out that a rapist found not guilty is then found to have previous convictions, or more likely, that a rapist found not guilty has had dozens of other failed prosecutions. It is very, very hard to get a conviction in a rape case partly due to rules of evidence and the way the legal system is run. It's a huge problem. Adding anonymity to those charged with a crime (not just suspected, mind you,but charged) would only add to the problem.
I do feel very strongly about this having spoken to rape victims and those campaigning in the field. None would support anonymity for those charged with sex offences. I'm not always comfortable with newspaper reporting myself, but as I said, the arrest of many criminals (not just sex offenders) and the reporting of their arrest, often brings other crimes to light that otherwise would remain hidden. It is a tremendously useful tool.

No offence taken

But, aloha, isn't the point that they CAN be reported about if the offence is only a suspected one, but they CAN'T be reported about once they've been charged, prior to the case going to court?

A friend of mine was accused of being involved in a paedophile ring and he had the most hideous time - it was lead item on the 1 o clock news, because he worked with children, he had his computer, all his videos, reams of paperwork confiscated by the police. The press had been tipped off before the police landed on his doorstep, so they were all round the house trying to get pictures. His work colleagues suffered from people giving them a rough time about 'working with a paedophile'.

My friend was never charged - the only scrap of evidence against him was that he was an acquaintance of someone who had been charged with being in a paedophile ring. You'd think that the police would apologise, the press would report that it was a totally unfounded case.

He got 1 line in the local newspaper saying 'No evidence found'. I firmly believe his career and life were adversely affected, and I am 100% confident he is not involved and has never been involved in anything like this. So I would agree with anonymity, at least until the person is charged, as there is likely to be some scrap of evidence at that point!

I also have an acquaintance falsely accused of rape - again no evidence at all and very little by way of apology in the press.

It's hard to say how rare false accusations are and it is definately true that many rapists get off. But I don't think they are quite as rare as you do Aloha.

I also don't see why anonimity would restrict justice - trials would still be reported, but the press wouldn't be able to run scurrilous interviews with relatives etc (I know they're not supposed to do that now, but they do. Perhaps the fines should be bigger).

I believe in having ID protected as my cousin was falsely accused of raping his other cousin. They had had sex and she changed her mind AFTERWARDS!! She refused to give the doctors premission to examine her but wanted to press charges. My DC was put in a young offenners prison and had his name in the local paper and on the radio. People would come to my DB amd say "your cousin a rapist" even though he hadn't been convited. The whole family was divided and whne it finally came out that she had lied and there was no rape, my cousin was finally let off. His name is on the Sex offenders register though as she was slighty underage. This wasn't the first bloke she had accused either.
The reason for all this was she wanted to stay in the area and not with her dad.
My cousin has had his life ruined and for what???

I'm not pouring out sympathy for another celebrity accused - they should be treated like any other person IMO.

I'm not sure how anonymity would overturn centuries of free reporting of the course of justice. Granting the victims anonymity hasn't affected it at all. A falsely accused defendant is more of a victim than the original victim so why should their name be plastered all over the press? I'm not for one moment suggesting that victims of sex offences should be named - is it only sex offence victims that are granted anonymity by the way?

Even if false accusations are very, very rare, there are 3 examples from the small sample the mumsnet crowd provided.

There are pros and cons of anonymity v publicity I guess (eg bringing other victims out of the woodwork so to speak) and there probably isn't an ideal solution. I do feel, though, that more consideration should be given to how the lives of the falsely accused can be ruined.

I usually like to think innocent until proven guilty but IMO they must have evidence that he is connected to this if they are going to arrest him for it. Being that he has a high public profile the police would look pretty silly if they arrested him without just cause. As shocked as I am to see him arrested, then released on bail I do believe that here has to be some substance to this in the first place.

The name of the person charged with a crime can always be reported (unless they are minors), it's just that there are restrictions on other things that can be reported after the charge. I still wonder why people think those charged with sexual offences should get preferential treatment compared to those charged with, say, burglary or murder. I think this is a huge freedom of information issue. I don't think that trials should be shrouded in secrecy. It is vital IMO that justice should be seen to be done and that, IMO, means free reporting of all the FACTS in the case, including the name of the defendant. Yes, it is very, very hard on those found not guilty of any offence, not just sexual offences, but it is part of living in a free democracy and of having the right to know the facts of any case.
The reason that anonymity was granted to the victims of sex attacks and blackmail as almost no victims at all were prepared to go to court otherwise, leaving us all - as women and mothers of chilren - at terrible risk from predatory rapists and child abusers who went almost unchecked. This was considered a great social evil as it not only allowed the guilty to go free, it also put many, many innocent people at risk from violent and dangerous criminals.
I also have to disagree that someone who is falsely accused is worse off than the victim of a rape, or a child who has been raped and sexually tortured.
Regarding Matthew Kelly, well, we'll wait and see. But lots of people didn't initially believe that nice, funny, cuddly Gary Glitter could be a bad man. But he was. A very, very bad man, in fact. Many celebrities such as Jonathan King, use their fame remorselessly to find victims yet bleat about how they have been pilloried when they are found out.

You may be right Temptress, but he hasn't even been charged with anything yet - this is what I mean about it being assumed there is something behind it. Does anyone remember the Neil and Christine Hamilton rape case - there was no evidence for that, and yet it was a high profile couple taken into custody and then released.

Aloha you may be right on the names of defendants in court cases, but the two celebs recently named in the press haven't even been charged. Let's wait until they actually get to court at the very least.Like I say, I don't think that the argument about bringing other witnesses out of the woodwork is very sound - that evidence would be a little bit like a positive ID in an identity parade where the police had told the victim which one the suspect was.

Temptress you have put your finger on exactly the reason why people arrested on suspicion of any serious crime should get anonymity - the police haven't charged Kelly yet and may have no evidence at all and even if they did have evidence, they are not infallible, and never could be.

And why do we need to know everything about the case anyway - it's not like the police have told us all the evidence in detail. How many people can honestly say that if he is not charged, or acquited, that the next time we see him on tv we won't think 'you're the bloke who was suspected of child abuse'.

There was anonymity for those accused of sex crimes between 1976 and 1988, but it was withdrawn because it was causing practical difficulties for the police and justice. For example, if a man absconded before trial, police could not warn that X, a suspected rapist, was at large. And a Parliamentary Commission decided, in October, not to reinstate it because it was contrary to the very important principle of open and public justice, which I also believe strongly in. Re witnesses and other victims coming forward. It is very common for rapists and abusers to use exactly the same methods and even form of words over and over again. It is very compelling when witnesses come forward and basically tell the same story over and over again. The publication of the bare name is often enough to bring other victims forward. It is extremely common for a man to be charged and acquitted many, many times for rape. Yet often each time the woman tells a very similar story, and he usually offers the same defence (sometimes quite an odd and quirky one which could not possibly be true over and over again - eg: the woman told him she had just found out her boyfriend had cheated on her and she wanted to have sex with a stranger to get back at him and had chosen him. This kind of defence starts to look pretty unconvincing when there is more than one victim. This is not theoretical. It really happens. If we name murder suspects we must name rape suspects, IMO.

Re: Pete Townshend, my attitude has hardened as I've thought more about it. He's already admitted being guilty of a crime - that of paying to use a paedophile website. There's no excuse for that in my book so his innocence isn't an issue for me. By paying money he was creating an even greater demand for the rape and torture of children. I have no sympathy. Mine is all for the poor children featured on the website he was supporting and using. I don't care what his justification is. The stuff on these websites is beyond belief.

Just to make it clear, I think I come across as having no sympathy for innocent defendants. That's not true. I do have great sympathy for people who are falsely accused or wrongly convicted of any crime. I am also uneasy when early identification of people who have not even been charged leads to them being ruined. I just feel that the open administration of justice is such an all-important principle that is vital to our freedom that I think it even overrides individual injustices. I know many others disagree. However, if this furore leads to fewer men logging on to websites like these, and more paedophiles quaking in their boots, then that has to be a one good outcome.

Aloha, I think we're all for making it more unattractive to men logging on to these horrible websites, but some of us aren't sure that the end justifies the means. When you talk about the importance of the free press (which I'm all for, too) it's important not to forget that the agenda of the vast majority of the press in this country is purely to sell more copies. If running salacious stories about celebs ? which may or may not be true ? does that, what's true and just is not necessarily an issue for them. Whipping up a witch hunt is not the right way for a civilised society to go ? the proper place for justice is the courts, not the tabloids.

My goodness, what a lot of well argued opinions. I agree with both sides to some extent, but I do feel that if you are innocent until proven guilty, your name should not be revealed to the press, whether you are a celebrity or Joe Bloggs, for whatever crime. The press can be guilty of trying someone who cannot respond. perhaps if the legal process did not take so long the public would be more confident about not having people named and unecessarily shamed.

Even now we do not know all the details of the Soham murders.
I think that we need to have all the infomation and the person to be found guilty before names need to be broadcasted. As I said my cousin had his name splashed across the radio and newspapers and yet the girl lied. She is not the victim in all of this, he is, but some of you seem to think that its ok for a woman (or man) to lie and ruin the life of the person accused because you feel that ALL names should be public news, well sorry, but I disagree and until you have a family member falsely accused, you will alll think the same way.

sorry just reread my last post and its sounds a bit harsh but am just trying to get a point across

I do see your point, and, no, I don't think it is OK for people to lie in a criminal trial. However, I think there is such an important principle at stake here we forget that at our peril. Just a thought, suppose you were vaguely aware of a trial going on that was shrouded in secrecy and you didn't know the name of the person accused. You subsequently found out that they were someone you actually saw at the time they were supposed to be committing the crime - and they had unjustly been found guilty. It can work this way too, you know. Of course, I would hate to be falsely accused, by anyone. But I still think open justice is more important and the police, and the parliamentary commission also agreed with this point after examining it at length very recently. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

I see your point but I still think that names should be kept secret UNLESS there is overwelling evidence that that person commited the offence.

Also if the police need witnesses they will describe the attack (or whatever) and the offender without a name anyway. I mean, is a name so important?? You may have seen an attack (like you are saying) but would you actually know the name? It is highly unlikely that you would. I know that our local paper reports attacks every week and they describe the offender and ask people to contact them if they saw anything.

sorry misread that one.