Do you think that’s fair and reasonable when the accused isn’t given the same level of protection and anonymity from the media prior to the trial?
As with a lot of things you are balancing a lot of conflicting rights and principles. The Govt on balance, yes, have decided that as part of the principle of open justice then there was no reason to treat rape as any different to any other serious offence, where no anonymity is given - thinking about it like that, why should rape be treated differently? So the provisions that were in place to grant anonymity were repealed in 1988.
It's also found to be in the benefit of the investigation, as other potential victims can see that someone has come forward and are more likely to come forward themselves*
So the anonymity for the alleged victim is still in place for multiple reasons, the main ones being it's such a personally traumatic event that it's difficult for people to come forward in the first place, so public naming was a barrier to that and also to save the alleged victim even more trauma and humiliation. And balancing that, I don't see how we (the public) not knowing the accusers name affects a free and fair process when of course the accused gets to know.
Plus my understanding is that even after a trial, assuming the accused is found innocent, the accuser having failed to prove their case and having publicly dragged someone’s name through the mud is still allowed to remain anonymous in perpetuity?
Not even after a trial, if the police decide to not go ahead they still get anonymity for the same reasons above. And in most cases the police decide to not press charges as generally it's a he said/she said situation with little to no evidence, it's not that they think the allegation is false or that the accused is guilty, it's just that there's not enough evidence to proceed to court with.
Surely that’s massively open to abuse , false accusations and grossly one-sided?
Well, obviously the police (I have mentioned my story about that before on here) and the courts are aware of that and looking at the miniscule amount of rape accusations that even get to court and then the 50/50 chance that will be found guilty, then unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, as bad as the false accusations are (I've been involved in a case that went to court for the defense and she lost immediately), I don't think the prosecution rate of innocent men accused of rape is going to be very high? And how will naming the accuser in public change the outcome?
There are studies and it seems false accusations are in the range of 2 - 10%.
* One thing there, if it is a false accusation, you're unlikely to get anyone else come forward, so in that way it could be in your benefit.
For the record, I used to be in the 'It's unfair rape accused aren't given anonymity' camp but after hearing the debates of both sides and seeing the rulings, I did change my mind a while ago and on balance, I don't think there's any intrinsic injustice happening in not naming the accuser against inflicitng more trauma and humiliation on the alleged victim.
If that's what needs to happen to ensure a functioning justice system, then yes it is. Life isn't always fair.
You really are a piece of work
