The priority needs to remain on improving the criminal justice system for victims and survivors, who already face a dramatic decline in cases taken forward to court: and a less than 4% chance of their case ever being heard.
A parliamentary petition, launched on 1 July 2019 by campaign group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair) and backed by Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini, is calling for legal anonymity protections for suspects of rape and sexual violence.
Both men were publicly named in the press as suspects; Sir Cliff Richard was never arrested, while radio DJ Paul Gambaccini was arrested but the case dropped a year later.
The College of Policing guidelines currently advise as best practice that those arrested or suspected should not be named until charged. However, this can be waivered “in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so.”
There are no grounds for changing the law specifically in relation to those suspected of sexual violence and abuse crimes.
The guidance was reviewed in relation to sexual offences by Theresa May as Home Secretary only a few years ago. The conclusion of the review was that there were no grounds for treating suspects differently to those accused of any other serious crimes.
It’s a practice that should remain, Katie Russell of Rape Crisis England and Wales states:
“Giving these suspects exceptional treatment compared to those suspected of similarly serious and stigmatising crimes would inevitably reinforce the public misconception – which is unsupported by evidence but nonetheless widely held – that those suspected of sexual offences are more likely to have been falsely accused than those suspected of other types of crime.
“There are no grounds for changing the law specifically in relation to those suspected of sexual violence and abuse crimes.”
Falsely accused: a public misconception
False accusations of rape, sexual abuse and other sexual offences are in fact rare. A study and report, commissioned by the Director of Public Prosecutions, looked into cases involving allegedly false accusations of rape or sexual violence. During the period of the review, the Crown Prosecution Service saw:
- 5,651 prosecutions for rape
- 111,891 for domestic violence
However, there were just 44 false accusations in total within that number. In summary, the Director of Public Prosecutions noted that the complex nature of these cases also needed to be considered; a significant number involved young, often vulnerable people. Many, it was added, had “undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one he or she had reported.”
Despite that low number, public misconception is that false accusations are common. This can be attributed to disproportionate media coverage; particularly when cases are high profile, including those with well-known or influential suspects.
Giving suspects of these crimes exceptional treatment, entrenched in law, will only further that public misconception that those suspected of sexual offences are more likely to have been accused than those suspected of other crimes. This, in turn, tells victims and survivors what we’re desperately fighting against: that if they do come forward, they won’t be believed.
Our prosecution service is already failing victims
It’s estimated that just 17% of those who are raped or sexually abused will ever report to the police.
Worse still, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, supported by the Centre for Women’s Justice, has recently launched a legal challenge against the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, after frightening statistics show a dramatic drop in the number of prosecutions for rape.
In light of these figures, women now have a less than 4% chance of ever having their case heard in court. Our prosecution service is already failing to protect victims and deliver justice.
It’s worth highlighting also that a failure for a case to progress to officially charging a suspect does not necessarily equate to innocence – or, therefore, a false claim. A lack of sufficient evidence or even a decision by the victim to withdraw a claim, which is sadly commonplace in a coercive or abusive relationship, could be the cause.
Why might police need to waiver anonymity before charging a suspect?
TRC was invited to discuss the parliamentary petition on BBC Five Live following the launch of the campaign. Public response raised the question of why police might choose to name suspects before charging.
Police make the decision to name suspects ‘in exceptional circumstances’, based on intelligence and information not available to the public and after presenting reason to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Naming a suspect can give other victims and survivors the courage they need to come forward.
An example may be to encourage other victims to come forward. Unfortunately, many perpetrators of sexual violence are repeat offenders. While recent movements and investigations – the #MeToo movement, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, for example – have increased the number of cases being reported, the truth is that the overwhelming majority will never be reported.
Naming a suspect can give other victims and survivors the courage they need to come forward, in the knowledge their voices will be heard and taken seriously. There may be insufficient evidence to charge on the basis of the original claim; additional testimony can provide the necessary grounds to charge.
As an example, Stuart Hall, radio and TV presenter, was convicted of indecent assault; his conviction was attributed in part to the additional victims who came forward following public naming of him as a suspect.
A blanket ban does not protect or service those who need it most: victims
The justice system should serve victims and survivors first and foremost.
Anything that adds to the culture of silence or survivors feeling they will not be believed undermines the pursuit for justice and the campaign to end violence against women. A comparison should not be made between a rape defendant and a rape victim; but between a rape defendant and defendants of other serious crimes, who also are not given anonymity before being charged.
While TRC acknowledges the impact a false accusation may have on an individual and their family, a blanket ban on the naming of suspects is not necessary or proportionate.
The justice system should serve victims and survivors first and foremost.
Rather, guidance for the media management of named suspects of sexual offences, alongside the existing checks in place for police making the decision, should be the default response.
We stand with Rape Crisis England and Wales and the statement that “When so very few sexual offenders are currently prosecuted and convicted, and when the impacts of sexual violence and abuse are so severe and long-lasting, our priority should surely be finding ways to improve the criminal justice system for victims and survivors.”
