Former Solicitor General Vera Baird makes a strong argument at Progress online against the proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases. She makes the important points that the coalition has actually made the case for this proposal yet (I noticed that equality minister Lynne Featherstone signally passed on the opportunity to do so on her blog) and that the fear of stigma applies not just to rape cases:
There is no argument in the coalition’s announcement. What surfaces from time to time is that being identified with a rape causes immediate stigma which is irremovable even by an acquittal. No problem being named as a baby batterer, paedophile, robber of the vulnerable or murderer and few argue for anonymity for those. It is only public exposure to rape charges that do damage. One should ask Colin Stagg, acquitted of the killing of Rachel Nickel some years ago, for his views on that.
She goes on,
Logically, either we continue to name all defendants, as we have done for centuries, intending that justice should be done publicly, or we launch a wide-ranging debate to consider changing the system to give anonymity to every defendant.
I’m not sure we name all defendants in fact: there are cases involving children where reporting is restricted. But the point is a valid one. I oppose granting anonymity to defendants in reporting of all criminal trials (as I understand they do in the Netherlands) but if we did, we ought to grant it to all defendants without distinction, in serious and minor cases and including for instance murder, terrorist offences, child porn offences, false accounting (in which case the MPs currently facing trial in relation to expenses claims would be protected) and road traffic offences. At least, the trial judge should have the same discretion in every case. Stigma does not just affect men acquitted of rape.
Finally she makes the excellent suggestion that general agreement could be reached on a proposal to secure anonymity for all defendants before they are charged but not thereafter. That I think is an idea worth considering. It might help avoid the most dangerous excesses of the tabloids when someone is arrested for a notorious crime, ensuring fair trials and safe convictions.
I disagree. Anonymity at any stage means that witnesses who might hear of the case do not come forward. Those witnesses’ testimony might favour either the defendant or the prosecution, and they might come forward either by hearing the name of the defendant or of the prosecution.
I.e. it might be to say “yes, he raped me too” or “no, she made a false allegation about me also”.
Wide reporting in the run-up to cases is important for the same reason. The idea that this prejudices a trial is wrong. Jurors are capable of putting to one side the scuttlebut of the press.
I only say it’s worth considering, Ben. I think it’s clear from my previous posts I’m absolutely against any anonymity “in the run-up” to trial.
“I only say it’s worth considering”
That’s too easy. Should we consider abandoning all our principles for some perceived or temporary advantage? Some things should be rejected out of hand and this is one of them.
Justice should be done in public, and the public should be able to discuss cases, both before, during, and afterwards. How else can we debate the law and the operation of the Courts?
Yes, I agree justice should be done in public, as I argued in an earlier post on this:
https://www.headoflegal.com/2010/05/24/we-must-see-justice-done-more-on-rape-and-anonymity/
Even Vera Baird’s compromise idea, that I only said was worth considering, would involve the public being “able to discuss cases, both before, during, and afterwards” to use your words, Ben.
Fine, if you disagree with the idea of anonymity for all criminal suspects before charge. As I keep repeating, I haven’t said I support it, just that it’s worth considering. From the arguments you’re using you’d think I’d supported anonymity of defendants before trial, which is something very different.