Head of the CPS backs no naming until charge.

[11122aa]

What's everyone's view on the issue.
Alison Saunders, the DPP, has stated she does not confirm anyone name until they are charged with Rape or other sexual offences. Will a formal ban have an effect on rape convictions. What about possibility ( as it as considerable public support) of no naming to conviction?

Can the Mods please edit the title to correct Bcks to Backs.

I don't have a problem with this if it applies to all crimes. I would like to know why sex crimes are are targeted.

Link?

The only link i have is behind a pay wall on the times.

It's on the Daily Mail, but the article seems neutral enough. Can't find it on other newspapers at the moment

"DPP Alison Saunders, the chief prosecutor for England and Wales, said Sir Cliff was 'right' to say suspects should not be named publicly before they are charged.

Ms Saunders warned about protecting the openness of justice but insisted police should not 'shout' about suspects before investigations are complete.
She acknowledged publicising investigations into high profile figures such as Stuart Hall and Max Clifford has successfully encouraged other victims to come forward.

Ms Saunders said the Crown Prosecution Service was trying to assist police investigations into historical abuse cases.
She said: 'We are trying to bring this to bear. It helps if you can say: ''This is the type of evidence we need'' or: ''That won't help, so don't go down this road''.'
The DPP added: 'If someone makes serious allegations we have got to investigate it.
'Sometimes you don't know what the evidence is until you do that. It is very easy with hindsight to say: 'You should not prosecute or bring charges — it must have all been a lie — how could you have done it?'"

So, more that she's saying that, in Cliff's case they fucked up then than that it should be universal.

So she didn't say that they shouldn't be named publicly - just that they shouldn't be shouted about. Not the same at all.

Bollocks to that shit. It's hard enough to prove rape let alone historical rape. It's hard enough to prove rape even when you were definitely by legal definition raped. At least "naming and shaming" can be a half SJW type justice. We know men do it (rape) and get away with it.

Not saying Cliff was a child abuser or not a child abuser just because no evidence has been found. If being able to name a suspect stops other men acting out their child abuse/rape fantasy then it's a small price to pay. A good bargain in fact.

People aren't supposed to be named until they're charged anyway, are they?

You can't stop a victim saying something.

Yea I'm confused, is that what Cliff and co are campaigning for? Saying it should be illegal for anyone to name them (the press, for example)? How is that workable?

I agree there should not be rolling news coverage on the scene before an arrest has been made. But people are named before being charged (it happened with a case in the news yesterday, "it is understood that the man involved is Mr Whoever, who works as whatever"). I get the impression that this is what the campaign is about. But I have not read much about it yet

There is a difference between requiring the police to be discreet and medit not publishing names than banning it in law imo.
My issue with enshrining defendant anonymity in law (what cliff wants) is it prevents the police speaking to other victims which can help build a case.
I don't think the media should be publishing names etc until charge but I think that is in CPS/media guidelines anyway, as she says.

I know next to nothing about the proceedings of criminal cases.

But I thought you were arrested, then charged.

Isn't this just saying that people should not be named before being charged?

But then, I know nothing

I thought that at first, book, but on further reading it seems some are suggesting that those suspected of sex crimes should have their anonymity protected by law, forever, much like a victim is.

"He will meet MPs and peers at the House of Lords to discuss giving sex abuse suspects the same anonymity rights as alleged victims."

I also know nothing, though, so I may be wrong!

Official College of Policing guidance is that suspects should not be named until charged, except in exceptional circumstances - has been the case since 2013 I think. Exceptional circumstances could be where a suspect has absconded and could be a danger to the public.
This applies to all offences not just sexual offences - sexual offences are just the ones where most mud sticks to the suspects. Unfortunately as the Cliff Richard case illustrates, the police are a bunch of leaky buckets, and as Leveson revealed, and have unhealthy relationships with the media. Some more information here www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Naming-Uncharged-Suspects-Encourage-Other-Complainants

A total ban on naming suspects is not advisable because there will be exceptional circumstances, but perhaps there could be the requirement to go to court to get leave to name a suspect publicly. There could also possibly be better controls on the press. I know our local press tend to err on the side of caution of not naming, including in the recent manhunt for a suspected murderer, where the suspect's name was widely known locally. But in a recent case where someone was arrested (not charged) for child abuse, his name was not published locally, but national tv news showed their photo and gave their name.

I may be wrong on this, but I think that in order to qualify for a legally aided solicitor to be present in questioning, you need to have been arrested. I agree with current guidance that suspects should be named only at the point that there is sufficient evidence to charge them.

The idea of having anonymity forever is silly. "Oh, I wonder why ched isn't playing for the blades this week, he seems to have disappeared?!"