Government Considers Non-Statutory Bans on Identification of Rape Defendants

The Government has now confirmed in Parliament that it is considering non- statutory rather than statutory bans on identification of rape defendants.

On Tuesday, in answer to Caroline Flint MP’s questions on the Government’s plans and proposals for statutory and non-statutory anonymity for defendants in rape cases, MoJ Minister Crispin Blunt replied: “As I made clear at the all-day debate on this subject on 8 July 2010, Official Report, columns 533-602, the Government will consider over the summer recess how best to go about strengthening anonymity up to the point of charge and will bring proposals to Parliament in the autumn.

“The Government are only considering non-legislative options on this matter and, as I said in the House on 20 July 2010, Official Report, columns 160-61, we are trying to find the best non-statutory solution.

“The Government have also decided to postpone publication of an assessment of the existing research and statistics until September. This will allow us to give as full a consideration as possible to the relevant evidence and to address the many questions that have been raised, in particular those raised in the debate on 8 July. The revised time scale also allows appropriate quality checks to be undertaken.”

At the debate on 8 July, opposition spokesperson Maria Eagle MP had referred to the Newspaper Society’s representations against the proposals in the coalition programme for government.

She said: “There are very few examples of malicious reporting. When the public talk about false reporting, they are often really referring to malicious reporting, which we all agree is a perversion of the course of justice, and can be, and is, charged as such where it is discovered.

“We must make it clear that in the current context anonymity in effect means reporting restrictions. What we are talking about, therefore, is not an objective descent of anonymity on to a named individual, but inhibiting our free press from reporting matters of public interest. I had a word with the Newspaper Society about what it thinks about that…

“We do not, however, say in respect of any crime that there should be a generalised anonymity for defendants. Particularly for the crime under discussion, that is what would lead to the deleterious side effects I have been outlining. Having looked into this matter, I do not think the downsides of granting anonymity just in respect of rape could possibly justify the impact on the very few instances of malicious reporting that it seems that there are-we do not know the precise number.

“The Newspaper Society says that the law should remain unchanged; the victims of alleged sexual offences are protected against identification during their lifetimes, but even those restrictions can be waived or lifted by the court in specific circumstances. It thinks the Government’s proposals are potentially far-reaching, and that that is fuelled by an imprecision in how they are set out.

“It thinks they could prevent the release, exchange, dissemination and publication of material, and that they could prevent investigation and reporting, including in respect of accuracy and legal checks, despite the real public interest in that being done.

“It also thinks they could fuel rumour and malicious gossip that is not just confined to the actual subject of the allegations, rather than prevent or curb that. It said, too, that the written statement on teacher anonymity was very imprecise, and that it is against it because of its imprecision and the potential impact on the capacity of a free press to do its job.”

To read the full debate click here.

However, the Government has not clarified its ‘non- statutory’ intentions on defendant anonymity, nor backed down on another surprise and  highly problematic coalition commitment on anonymity for teachers facing allegations ( of any kind), nor the equally unexpected suggestion by the Minister in the same debate that they would consider whether the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence provisions for anonymity of under 18 year olds who are the alleged victims, witnesses or suspects in incidents under criminal investigation, before any charges are brought, should be brought into effect.

In addition, the Law Commission has published a draft Bill embodying its recommendations for new appeals against the lifting of reporting restrictions on under 18 year olds, introducing new rights to make representations about life threatening rulings and  in the event of an appeal, imposition of reporting restrictions  upon the ruling, appeal and applicant .

However, the Law Commission’s report helpfully decided against the introduction of new rights to appeal against a court’s refusal to impose other reporting restrictions or to exclude the press and public. (The NS had responded to the consultation).

The NS will continue to pursue representations against the unnecessary extension of reporting restrictions.

For further information please contact Santha Rasaiah on 020 763 274 61 or santha_rasaiah@newspapersoc.org.uk.