AS police continue to investigate an allegation that Sir Cliff Richard sexually assaulted a boy in 1985, Sir Cliff has said the claim is "completely false."
Many people wrongly accused of serious sex offences say that the experience has devastated the rest of their lives; but the question of anonymity for suspects in sex abuse or rape cases is one that divides opinion.
When in 1988 the Thatcher government removed the right to anonymity for defendants in rape cases that had existed for the previous 12 years, it was a move which has been widely approved. However, the current debate turns on the position of someone who has not been arrested or charged, and is not a defendant.
Whenever an allegation is made the police have a duty to investigate, and it is not until that investigation is completed and the matter reviewed by the CPS that a decision is made about charging someone. Until that decision they remain a suspect only.
David Cameron has said that there is no simple answer, stating that there is a 'difficult balance' to be struck between respecting the privacy of suspects and publicising when arrests are made, as the latter can help to encourage other potential victims to come forward. So where does this leave us?
The coalition government's pledge to introduce anonymity for rape suspects in England and Wales until conviction was dropped when ministers said there was not enough evidence to justify change in the law, but in June the House of Lords voted in favour of suspect anonymity. The Government is now promoting anonymity before charge in cases of rape.
Those against the anonymity proposals say that it is wrong to pick out rape offences for particular attention as it might suggest the complainants in such cases are more prone to lying, and deter victims from coming forward.
Anyone can be arrested on suspicion of committing an offence. An allegation only has to be made by one person and this can trigger an arrest.
The difficulty is that being linked to an alleged offence, particularly one of a sexual nature, causes some members of the public to jump to their own conclusions and the damage is already done to the person concerned – the "no smoke without fire" dispute.
It seems only fair that proper consideration be given to balancing a consistent approach, taking into account the freedom of the press, the rights of any victim and the rights of the accused.
I have no issue at all with people charged before a court of law being named in the press. That is absolutely in the public interest. Before even being charged though, I am not sure.
By Samantha Pegg
THE allegation of sexual assault against singer Sir Cliff Richard has once again raised the question of whether we should protect the anonymity of those accused of sexual offences.
Sir Cliff has not been arrested or charged, but even allegations of sexual offending can ruin reputations and tear apart families.
If these allegations are proven in a court of law we may say the offender deserved this humiliation, but what if the accused is innocent? In cases where charges are dropped or defendants are acquitted, this stigma is a terrible side effect.
Anonymity was introduced for complainants and defendants in sexual offence cases in 1976. Although anonymity for defendants was abolished in 1988, there have been periodic calls for its reinstatement, most recently in the coalition's programme for government. That proposal was later abandoned.
The police maintain they need to be able to name suspects to investigate cases effectively. Naming may also encourage other victims to come forward, giving them confidence they will be believed.
As reporting rates for sexual offences have historically been low and offenders pose a serious risk, this police claim seems reasonable. We also have a system of open justice, where the criminal justice process should be as transparent as possible. But is it too transparent for those defendants who are later exonerated or have false accusations made against them?
As the old saying goes, rape is the easiest allegation to make and the hardest to disprove, and the same can be said for offences against children; but research by the Crown Prosecution Service last year found false allegations of rape are rare, and when made they are taken extremely seriously. Rosie Dodd, 20, of North Sherwood Street in Nottingham, who falsely accused three men of rape, was given a two-year jail sentence in 2012, and other offenders have received sentences of a similar length.
Perhaps the real issue here is the press reportage of these cases. Obviously the Cliff Richard case will be reported to its conclusion by the press, but what of the man in the street who has been accused of rape?
The press needs to be a more active partner in the process of open justice and to follow cases to their conclusion. Then the public will not only understand that sexual offences are taken seriously but that not all those accused are guilty. We need to publicly clear names, not only in a court of law but in the court of public opinion.
By Andy Cash
