BUT, if we are to grant anonymity in a case like this, it will have to be granted in any case where there are huge stigmas attached to the crime, e.g. child abuse .. where does that stop?

I think people who are accused of child abuse should have the right to anonymity too. Hell, why not make it for every offense. After all, you are innocent until proven guilty.

BUT, if we are to grant anonymity in a case like this, it will have to be granted in any case where there are huge stigmas attached to the crime, e.g. child abuse .. where does that stop?

Didge.

I would say any crime, where there is likely to be a stigma, if you are found out to be innocent, should automatically have anonymity, unless there are special circumstances.

After Jack Tweed was found innocent the other week my boyfriend said they should punish the girl for crying rape and wasting police time and tax payers money on the trial. Might be one way to stop people claiming rape just because they're not happy about what they did.

I've never ever thought of doing anything like that. Is it me or are people becoming more evil and nasty by the day?

Is it me or are people becoming more evil and nasty by the day?

That makes for a very sticky wicket though, because it means a lot more people won't talk to the police for fear of the case not being won.

That makes for a very sticky wicket though, because it means a lot more people won't talk to the police for fear of the case not being won.

In the case of false allegations then the accuser should definitely face charges for wasting police time etc, not to mention sued the [LIFTED] out of.

Anonymity plan for alleged rapists sparks activist backlash

Plans to grant anonymity to defendants accused of rape could lead to serial attackers slipping through the net, campaigners, victims and lawyers warned today.

Women who had not previously had the confidence to report a rape were often inspired to do so after seeing media reports naming and picturing the same man, experts said, and allowing the accused to remain anonymous would prevent such breakthroughs.

They also expressed concern that the proposal, which is intended to protect men from the damaging impact of "false allegations", gave the impression that women frequently lie about rape and could put them off coming forward, hitting the already low conviction rate.

The controversial plan surprised even senior figures working on rape policy in the criminal justice system when it appeared in the coalition's programme for government earlier this week – despite featuring in neither the Liberal Democrat nor Conservative election manifesto. It was adopted as Lib Dem policy in 2006, but has received little attention since.

A leading human rights lawyer, Harriet Wistrich, suggested it could be possible to use sexual discrimination and human rights legislation to challenge the move – which will turn the clock back to 1976, when the Sexual Offences Act introduced anonymity for those accused of rape. The provision was later repealed.

Allowing defendants in rape cases, but not those charged with other offences, to remain anonymous would be discriminatory because it would apply almost exclusively to men, Wistrich said.

Yesterday Sheila Coates, of Rape Crisis, said the service's south Essex centre knew of several cases where women had seen news of a rape prosecution in local media and come forward to report that the defendant had attacked them too. Research was needed into the true number of false allegations, which was not thought to be large in reality, she said.

"If a guy gets off it does not necessarily mean he didn't do it," Coates said. "The underlying, subtle message of this is that women tell lies and we must protect men from that. Women will pick that up and as a result some will not report rape."

The Ministry of Justice issued a brief statement on the nine-word proposal, saying: "This is a sensitive area and careful analysis of the options and implications will be undertaken." Requests for ministers to explain the rationale behind the policy, or who had proposed it, were turned down.

Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem junior equalities minister, later posted a statement on her blog saying that a perpetrator would only be named if convicted. "It is clearly appalling for someone who is innocent to find their life and reputation ruined by false accusation and trial," she said. But she went on to note that only 6% of reported rapes end in a guilty verdict.

The Labour peer Helena Kennedy QC said the naming of accused rapists helped police investigations. "People who commit crimes like rape and serious crimes of violence, particularly sexually motivated ones, are often repeat offenders," she said. "What the police will tell you is that very often the exposure of the identity of the accused brings forward other people.

"We really haven't got it right on rape yet and this would be one of the ways in which we would undermine it further."

Earlier this year a landmark review of the way rape is prosecuted, conducted by the crossbench peer Baroness Stern, urged independent research into the scale and nature of false allegations before any view was reached on anonymity for defendants. Police and solicitors said they encountered such cases extremely rarely, Stern noted.

Debaleena Dasgupta, a lawyer who specialises in police misconduct in rape cases, said she was convinced the coalition's plan would undermine victims' confidence to report rape. It had not been publicised during the election campaign. "This is such a significant issue for a large number of women. A lot of Lib Dem voters were women – if they had known what the party would be putting forward they might not have voted for them," she said.

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said: "It's strikingly sexist that this is the one thing being put forward on rape. It's dressed up as civil liberties, but in fact it's a very old political agenda — to put women back in our box, put us off complaining and dismiss us as liars when we do."
Case study

One woman who had been attacked told the Guardian yesterday that she was strongly against anonymity for rape defendants. She said: "As a victim you don't have any protection in court whatsoever – you're at a severe disadvantage. You don't have a barrister, character witnesses, a solicitor, you're not able to see the defendant's statements in advance. But he will be able to see yours, and he has all those people. You are absolutely trashed by his barrister. This woman[The barrister] was hounding me, making me out to be a liar, unstable, saying I was unloved, … damaged. The police also gave discrediting evidence, saying I was unstable because I kept calling them. I did call a lot but that was because they never got back to me. The defendant is in the room, but I gave evidence by video link. It means you can't see the jury, you can't appeal to them. But he can. I would have been totally distraught if he been granted anonymity as well – the idea is an absolute disgrace. How are they going to get other people to come forward if they hide it when someone is accused?

"Alleged terrorists don't get anonymity, so let's not make rape a special case. Defendants already get quite enough compared to their victims."

Women who had not previously had the confidence to report a rape were often inspired to do so after seeing media reports naming and picturing the same man, experts said, and allowing the accused to remain anonymous would prevent such breakthroughs.

They also expressed concern that the proposal, which is intended to protect men from the damaging impact of "false allegations", gave the impression that women frequently lie about rape and could put them off coming forward, hitting the already low conviction rate.

Allowing defendants in rape cases, but not those charged with other offences, to remain anonymous would be discriminatory because it would apply almost exclusively to men, Wistrich said.

"If a guy gets off it does not necessarily mean he didn't do it," Coates said. "The underlying, subtle message of this is that women tell lies and we must protect men from that. Women will pick that up and as a result some will not report rape."

Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem junior equalities minister, later posted a statement on her blog saying that a perpetrator would only be named if convicted. "It is clearly appalling for someone who is innocent to find their life and reputation ruined by false accusation and trial," she said. But she went on to note that only 6% of reported rapes end in a guilty verdict.

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said: "It's strikingly sexist that this is the one thing being put forward on rape. It's dressed up as civil liberties, but in fact it's a very old political agenda — to put women back in our box, put us off complaining and dismiss us as liars when we do."

One woman who had been attacked told the Guardian yesterday that she was strongly against anonymity for rape defendants. She said: "As a victim you don't have any protection in court whatsoever – you're at a severe disadvantage. You don't have a barrister, character witnesses, a solicitor, you're not able to see the defendant's statements in advance. But he will be able to see yours, and he has all those people. You are absolutely trashed by his barrister. This woman[The barrister] was hounding me, making me out to be a liar, unstable, saying I was unloved, … damaged. The police also gave discrediting evidence, saying I was unstable because I kept calling them. I did call a lot but that was because they never got back to me. The defendant is in the room, but I gave evidence by video link. It means you can't see the jury, you can't appeal to them. But he can. I would have been totally distraught if he been granted anonymity as well – the idea is an absolute disgrace. How are they going to get other people to come forward if they hide it when someone is accused?

"Alleged terrorists don't get anonymity, so let's not make rape a special case. Defendants already get quite enough compared to their victims."

suggestions that "just because they were found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it" is both hysterical and unhelpful. Presumably then, all men accused of rape are just guilty and should be locked away?

If there's an 'impression that women frequently lie about rape', that's got more to do with the media and it's impact on people's beliefs than anything else - your first instinct for someone alleging rape is sympathy.

How many footballers alone have been falsely accused of rape even in the last five years, before you get to Joe Bloke being accused because his 'girlfriend' was married and embarrassingly caught out? Domestic argument with a bunny boiler? If you know a cop, ask them about this sort of thing. It might not always make it to court, but it's probably more common than it should be...

Jack Tweed? Christ, there's even an incredibly dodgy-looking story around Steven Segal