Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini launch sex offence anonymity campaign

[silvagti]

Sir Cliff Richard has called for a "re-balancing of the legal system" as he launched a petition calling for anonymity for sexual offence suspects before they are charged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48822950

My personal thoughts are that it's travesty that in the modern justice system an individual can level an accusation against someone whilst remaining anonymous then drag their name through the mud, ruin their livelyhood, personal life and reputation. Then even if the accused turns out to be innocent and the allegation proven false the accused still retains their anonymity and suffers no repurcussions.

Either both parties should remain anonymous until the trial is completed or both should be named. This whole concept of only one party in a trial being named needs to stop. It makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence before proven guilty.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The group's parliamentary petition calls for a change in the law so those suspected of sexual offences have anonymity until they are charged, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

This sounds perfectly reasonable.

It seems the open letter by EVAW completely misses the point. They seem to assume the anonymity would carry through to court which isn't what is being proposed.

Link to petition here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/247912

Edit:
I don't think I agree about this though:

• Changing the language in criminal proceedings from “victims” to “complainants.”

 

[silvagti]

I was watching an interview on BBC news tonight and the attitude of the woman they had on against this proposed change in the law terrified me. She was suggesting it's totally fine if innocent people are accused and saw it as a "necessary evil".

She also stated that the "conviction rate for sex-related crimes was 'too low' and we should actively trying to increase this..!" She's literally making the assumption that everyone accused is guilty! Because obviously if you're accused of a crime you're either found guilty or you get away with it. No smoke without fire...!

 

[Quartz]

My personal thoughts are that it's travesty that in the modern justice system an individual can level an accusation against someone whilst remaining anonymous then drag their name through the mud, ruin their livelyhood, personal life and reputation. Then even if the accused turns out to be innocent and the allegation proven false the accused still retains their anonymity and suffers no repurcussions.

Agreed.

 

[Quartz]

I was watching an interview on BBC news tonight and the attitude of the woman they had on against this proposed change in the law terrified me. She was suggesting it's totally fine if innocent people are accused and saw it as a "necessary evil".

Perhaps she should realise that current legislation applies also to women accused by men.

 

[hominid]

I think it makes sense, it equalizes both sides. They are complainants until the accused is found guilty, then the accuser turns into a victim and the accused from innocent to guilty. A bit convoluted but it's much better than the current system.

With more and more innocent people being hauled through the court system, and with todays outrage culture, it's a much needed change as the accusation is more than enough to ruin someone.

They've found out in other countries, like Israel, that changing the legal requirements for finding someone guilty of sexual assault, and more, has loads of unintended consequences. This is a shocking piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZTWBB26Cw

 

[Burnsy2023]

l
She also stated that the "conviction rate for sex-related crimes was 'too low' and we should actively trying to increase this..!"

The conviction rate for sexual offences is staggeringly low. It's inherently hard to prove, especially when it relies so heavily on victim testimony. There are many people who have seen their rapist walk free from court. It's harrowing but not unusual.

None of that changes my mind on anonymity before charge though.

 

[BowdonUK]

I agree with what others have posted.

I've argued with a couple of people on twitter. They are pushing the line that its some kind of deterrent against people committing sexual crimes. I've said to two of them, "ok, so if someone makes a sexual accusation against you, the police arrest you to take an official statement, you'd be ok with the media saying your name to the public?". So far neither person as replied to me.

The one thing I don't get is when the media reveal peoples names, how come its not prejudicial in the court case? Like if Cliff or Paul (from OP's BBC link) had been charged and taken to court, how could they get a fair trial when the media as effectively been pushing the case against them?

 

[Akagi]

There are many people who have seen their rapist walk free from court. It's harrowing but not unusual.

I personally know two people who have gone through exactly this, one of them reacted by moving to the other end of the country.

 

[mmj_uk]

I was watching an interview on BBC news tonight and the attitude of the woman they had on against this proposed change in the law terrified me. She was suggesting it's totally fine if innocent people are accused and saw it as a "necessary evil".

It's not an isolated view unfortunately. There was a thread on here a while back where some people were arguing that those who go to court and are found not guilty should still have it held against them for the rest of their lives because in their mind everyone who is accused is guilty and it's just a lack of evidence that meant they got off. Utterly terrifying.

People don't seem to realise that if you allow mere accusations to stick with someone without any repurcussions for the accuser, even if found to be lying, you're basically going to get people weaponising it and making false accusations.

It'd be something like China with their social credit system, in China if you criticise the government they can just decrease your score whereas over here they would just have to get to get someone to accuse you of something like the US Democrats tried with Brett Kavanaugh. With either system a persons personal reputation is going to be in ruins which will affect all walks of life and they aren't ever able to clear their name.

 

[platinum87]

Sir Cliff Richard has called for a "re-balancing of the legal system" as he launched a petition calling for anonymity for sexual offence suspects before they are charged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48822950

My personal thoughts are that it's travesty that in the modern justice system an individual can level an accusation against someone whilst remaining anonymous then drag their name through the mud, ruin their livelyhood, personal life and reputation. Then even if the accused turns out to be innocent and the allegation proven false the accused still retains their anonymity and suffers no repurcussions.

Either both parties should remain anonymous until the trial is completed or both should be named. This whole concept of only one party in a trial being named needs to stop. It makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence before proven guilty.

I am a bit confused, but since when are the accusers anonymous? In current UK law does the accused not get to see the witnesses against them?

 

[Thecaferacer]

I am a bit confused, but since when are the accusers anonymous? In current UK law does the accused not get to see the witnesses against them?

They're anonymous in terms of names being released into the public sphere. The accused will always be told who the person making the accusation is.

Rape is an incredibly complex issue. Easy to accuse, extremely difficult to prove, nearly impossible to disprove.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it can take the form of many types of accusations, from the stereotypical woman dragged into an alley to a girl who has one night stand who changed her mind half way through but didn't communicate that to the male. Both would be dealt with as rape and the male arrested and interviewed. Conviction rates are low because in an overwhelming number of cases there is zero evidence to support an offence has taken place.

 

[StriderX]

Why only sexual offenders, why not everyone accused of a crime?

 

[dowie]

She also stated that the "conviction rate for sex-related crimes was 'too low' and we should actively trying to increase this..!" She's literally making the assumption that everyone accused is guilty! Because obviously if you're accused of a crime you're either found guilty or you get away with it. No smoke without fire...!

There have already been problems perhaps partly as a result of this sort of attitude with things getting sloppy at the CPS and failures to disclose evidence leading to trials collapsing at the last minute.

Perhaps she should realise that current legislation applies also to women accused by men.

There is some silliness in the system at US colleges where they've essentially created a race to accuse... like after an episode of drunken sex technically both parties have potentially raped each other... the first one to make the accusation (whether male or female) gets the upper hand and becomes the "victim".

 

[Thecaferacer]

There have already been problems perhaps partly as a result of this sort of attitude with things getting sloppy at the CPS and failures to disclose evidence leading to trials collapsing at the last minute.

It's the opposite that is true. Police and CPS as a whole are now so good at what they are doing they are finding reasons not to take cases to court and doing the defences work for them. The cases that collapsed would have never been charged if the phone evidence was properly reviewed. Police and CPS cannot convert a flawed case into a conviction at court, they can only work with the evidence they have and often it's virtually nothing or so undermining that a case has to be discontinued.

 

[chrcoluk]

Bear in mind one of the reasons the conviction rate is low is also that false claims get made, like as a means of revenge against someone. I fully support not naming suspects, a suspect isnt a criminal they just a suspect.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Bear in mind one of the reasons the conviction rate is low is also that false claims get made, like as a means of revenge against someone. I fully support not naming suspects, a suspect isnt a criminal they just a suspect.

That's one issue that's largely ignored. Whenever you see women's groups comment on this they claim that false allegations don't happen or are so tiny they don't register, which is blatantly false. They quoute numbers of proven false allegations which is disingenuous as it's almost impossible to disprove an allegation. If cases could be proven on balance of probabilities then false allegations cases would sky rocket.

However it's more a problem of perception. Many accusers 'feel' like they were raped but when critically analysed the male could have never known consent was withdrawn or they never had it in the first place.

 

[jonneymendoza]

spot on this. innocent until proven guilty

 

[cheesyboy]

Why only sexual offenders, why not everyone accused of a crime?

Because wealthy people don't fear being accused of any other crimes.

 

[wolfie138]

I don't think I agree about this though:

• Changing the language in criminal proceedings from “victims” to “complainants.”

given the number of people who have brought fake accusations and are therefore NOT victims, I think it's reasonable until such time as the accusation is proven.