Publicly naming alleged rapists.

[flobadob]

How can it be fair that as soon a someone is accused of rape they can be named straight away, guilty or not, but the alleged victims get lifelong anonymity?

[FredPuli43]

Every accused may have his reputation sullied by the accusation,whatever it is, whether he is acquitted in due course or not. What's so special about an accusation of rape? (Somebody must think it special; it has been proposed before in Parliament but the proposed reform was never pursued).

Complainants have had anonymity in rape cases since 1976. The rule was introduced because of the belief that women were reluctant to come forward if their name and the details would be published. There is one adverse side-effect. The woman might be in the habit of making false accusations, of which the police may be unaware. If her name is published, those men who have been falsely accused might see it and present themselves as defence witnesses.

[hc4361]

Fred, the police would be aware if a person had made previous allegations any where in the country.

[FredPuli43]

Unfortunately, the police are not aware of all false accusations of rape. The woman might not have gone to the police but confined the accusation to the man and acquaintances. And, anyway, the cross-referencing of cases of women who have 'come to notice' is not perfect.

A strange example was of a woman who had been assaulted in a peculiarly odd manner in the course of the supposed rape. The defendant said the whole activity was consensual. Perhaps she regretted the marks or was embarrassed about them, but the case got to court, where the prosecution's opening was reported in the local paper. When the paper appeared, a man contacted the court and so the defence solicitors, to say that he had the identical experience and thought she must be the same woman who had consented. She was. He came to court and testified that the woman had consented. The defendant was acquitted.