by
Les May
ANONYMITY
until
and unless charged for those suspected of sexual crimes has returned
to the public agenda with the launching of a parliamentary petition.
Such a change was recommended by
the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/20/suspects-should-stay-anonymous-until-charged-mps-say
Why
this was never acted upon and it has been left to people who have
experienced significant personal distress and loss of income because
they have been named as being investigated for sexual offences, I do
not know. One possible reason is the
myth propagated by some prominent feminists and their acolytes in the
media that
without the police being allowed to ‘trawl for evidence’, victims
as they would call them, complainants to the rest of us, would not
come forward. They would have us believe that this period of
pre-charge publicity is essential in securing convictions. This
is not true.
Under
the changes advocated by
the group Falsely
Accused Individuals for Reform (FAIR)
the
restriction on naming a suspect would cease
once charges had been brought. Three
of the highest profile sexual abuse cases of recent years were those
of Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford. I
looked at the time which elapsed between each of them being charged
and the trial date, and the number of time they appeared in court
including the trial date.
Harris
was
charged in August 2013, went to trial eight
months later in May 2014 and
appeared in court 3 times; Hall
was arrested in December 2012, went to trial four
months later in April 2013 and appeared in court 3 times;
Clifford
was charged in December 2012, went to trial fifteen
months later in March 2014 and appeared in court 4 times. In other
words there was plenty of time for each
of them
to be repeatedly named in the press after charging and before trial.
Significantly the publicity generated by the trial resulted
in Hall facing further charges in July 2013 and
Harris also faced further charges.
Having
seen some of the responses given by some women journalists I am
inclined to wonder if they actually realise how limited are the aims
of the supporters of FAIR.
There
is
no demand here that persons being
alleged
to
have committed sexual
offences
should not be named, only that they should not be named until charged
with a specific offence, other
than in exceptional circumstances.
The
journalist Yasmin
Alibhai-Brown
insists
that pre-charge publicity is
vital if complainants are to come forward. But when she received in
May 2012 a letter alleging that Stuart Hall had committed such an
offence she did not
feel this so strongly that she publicised the fact; she gave the
letter to the police.
Seven
months later Hall was charged after
a police investigation.
Now it may be that Yasmin was just being a good citizen and doing
what you or I would do. Alternatively it may be that she realised
that the allegation just might be false and that if she publicised it
Hall might sue for defamation.
Seemingly
repeating what Harriet Harman has said Alibhai-Brown
says,
‘FAIR
campaigners should focus instead on reckless police officers who
bypass strict guidance on when and whether names of suspects should
be made public. According to the rules, identification should be
withheld until the person is charged, except
when there is some basis for believing there is a pattern of criminal
activity.’
The
underlined section would cover the Worboys
case which is routinely trotted out as an example of why anonymity
should not be granted before charges are brought.
You
might wonder, as I do, how the ‘strict guidance’ differs
materially from what those who support the FAIR campaign are asking
for. This seems to have escaped Yasmin and
Harriet.
In
October 2017 Harriet said, ‘I
think that the absolute key to this, when I think about my own
experience and think about the Harvey Weinstein thing, is we need a
system of whistle-blowing, anonymous whistle-blowing’.
So
no anonymity there Harriet? How did this woman get to be
Solicitor-General and caretaker leader of the Labour party?
(Note that the link embedded in
the above is dead.)
The
journalist Melanie
Phillips
is
on record as saying ‘More
secrecy in our courts is not the answer’.
Again she seems to have misunderstood the aims of FAIR.
Once someone has been charged with a specific offence it would be
permissible to name them. There is no secrecy involved. Anyone
being questioned or charged would have access to legal
representation. Again
no secrecy.
The
evidence seems to point to the fact that the publicity surrounding
the charging and trial of those alleged to have carried out crimes of
a sexual nature is sufficient to encourage other complainants to come
forward. Hall
and Harris both faced further charges after their first trial as more
complainants contacted the police. Worboys too has faced further
charges as up
to 100
complainants have come forward since his trial and conviction in
2008. We clearly
don’t
need people to be ‘hung
out like like fly paper’
(in the words of Paul
Gamboccini)
to convince complainants to come forward.
In
the UK we tend to think our institutions and ways of doing things are
the envy of the world. The Brexit saga has somewhat dented this
optimistic view. But this is what the picture
of the English legal system looks like to an Irish Supreme Court
judge. It is not a very flattering picture.
A
House
of Lords Library Briefing prepared in advance of the second reading
of the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL] can
be found by
following the
link below and
going to the bottom of the page.
************
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment