Spurious allegations of rape

[Ding-Dong]

Where it transpires that a rape allegation is vexatious, why is the accuser guaranteed their anonymity? Also, why aren't charges brought for perjury?

After all, quite often the innocent accused has had his face plastered over the papers, and even when found not guilty, I think a certain amount of stigma will inevitably attach.

[nfn]

I agree, I don't think either party should be named until after the trial. Then if the accused is guilty they should be named and shamed and if the accuser is found to be lying they should be named and shamed.

[jake-the-peg]

I imagine that charges aren't brought for perjury because you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintif was actually lying . Failing to win a case doesn't necessarily prove that.

[brachiopod]

"... and even when found not guilty, I think a certain amount of stigma will inevitably attach."

Not just in the minds of those who know the accused, who are probably thinking "No smoke without fire", but also on his police record - whether found not guilty, (or even if no charges were pressed in the first place), a note will always remain on his Police Record that he was the subject in an alleged rape.

This would have to be revealed in an Enhanced Disclosure search, (for example if he were to become a teacher and work with children), result? That's his career f***ed because of a spurious and malicious allegation.

[ronniemonda8]

why isn't the accused kept anonymous? In case someone else wants to come forward with evidence?

I would put away false accusers for 20 years. That'll teach em.

[ICEMANSAV]

surely there is punishment enough by claiming they have done it with gay boy Cristiano R!

[bernardo]

I think that both parties should remain anonymous. There is a case that it should also apply to other serious offences, not just rape.