Anonymity during a Court Case

Well said Clive!

This was discussed on Sky News paper review this morning and they also referred to Ched Evans' acquittal.  A serving member of South Yorkshire Police tweeted that the press were to blame for the police investigations of Sir Cliff and other high profile personalities.  This horrified one of the guests who stated that the Police tipped off the media.  

Unfortunately, there are people of all ages and both sexes who want their moment in the sun so lie about "encounters" with celebrities and sports personalities.  According to women's groups Ched Evans' acquittal has put their cause back 30 years.  Why? There are two sides to every story and we now know more about the "victim".  I believe that these groups have damaged themselves by airing their views before the true events had been revealed.  

Yes there's been solid proof against Savile, Hall, Harris and Clifton; justice has prevailed.  Sir Cliff is suing; when he wins I hope he donates the damages award to charity.  What Mr Trump will do, who knows.....

I am all for it as well ,to often they get it wrong and the poor persons life is left in ruins even after they have been acquitted.. But yes once he/she  been found guilty yes fine print it every where

I don't think it has ever been right.... especially if there is a possibility of a compensation payment......... Obviously abuse is not right, but we now live in a world of compensation and rich lawyers..... What I don't get is why all this abuse only affects people 20, 30 or 40 years later.... seems strange to me... 

I'm with Barney with my cynical radar on full strength.

Few people will argue that no one should be publicly named and shamed before being convicted.

But we have a whole industry devoted to naming and shaming, it sells newspapers, generates publicity for organisations, and keeps the legal system and shyster lawyers in business.

Stop buying the daily fail and currant bun, and ignore people that crawl out of the woodwork 30, 40 years later with tales of woe for promises of cash.

I can't imagine the distress to being wrongly convicted, because in the eyes of most of us, there's no smoke without fire. Which means in real terms, your life is left in tatters, regardless of being proven innocent.

If squeaky clean Sir Cliff isn't immune, then I'm just waiting for the Terry Wogan allegations to start surfacing. "I got fondled with a blankety blank cheque book and pen" 

Tony Blackburn is returning to the BBC after the historic allegations made about him.  Whatever you may think of his music taste, it is good to see the Beeb doing the right thing.

His new show will be Friday evenings 7-8pm, replacing Desmond Carrington who has decided to retire after 70 years of broadcasting, latterly from his home in Scotland.

Whilst I have some sympathy for anyone being put before the courts for something they didn't do, trials and examination of the facts must remain open and transparent to all. Allowing the government to conduct trials behind closed doors reminds me of Argentinian justice where people simply disappear without warning.

It should also be acknowledged that The charge of Rape has the worst conviction rate of any crime, victims always face trial by media. They are often suspected of being gold diggers, attention seekers or simple fantasists. This fear of ridicule and shame prevent many victims from reporting their abuse, this allows the perpetrators behaviour to continue unchecked and more victims are then created. 

I guess the point I am making is a victim of a sexual crime has lived his or her experience, in order to get justice they must share that experience with the world whilst being questioned by an over paid lawyers who specialise in making you doubt your own name. The fight is heavily stacked in favour of the defendant because the Court demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Even when a victim Wins, do they really get justice? Seeing your abuser go to prison will not heal the emotional scars. Indeed many victims continue to fear future reprisal, they count the days until the abuser is released. I simply can't imagine how that must feel. So whilst I do feel some sympathy for the innocent offender wrongly accused, it is still nothing to what a genuine victim has to endure.

our judicial system is the oldest in the world, it's not perfect. It is slow and clumsy at times. We do wrongly convict some and the system can be abused by those who understand it.

That said, it is all we have and it does help to maintain a semi-civilised society.

I think such is the nature of these crimes and in many cases it is actually seen as worst than murder. Years ago pre - computer age in the majority of cases a person accused of such crimes would have had their name mentioned in the local press and that was about as far as it would go. Eventually this news would have been archived. Nowadays with social media the news goes international within minutes and its there for life, I would imagine anyone above celebrity status would have a Wikipedia page updated and references pointing to either convictions or alleged offenses....

I honestly believe that the right of an accused individual to anonymity before conviction supersedes the rights of a victim. When you look at the scales of justice they are level... They are not tipped in favour of one or the other.... In my mind naming an individual guilty or not tips the scales in favour of the accuser. The problem is with these types of cases is that it inevitably boils down to one persons word against another so it is a case of who do you believe?...

Maybe they could try these types of cases like they try the secret family court system... and then once convicted by all means name and shame...   

For someone who works in the judicial system Ray, I genuinely respect your opinion and I can only offer an opinion from someone on the outside looking in. So maybe I'm being naive.

But I thought trials were open and transparent, and are investigated by the Police etc, and then in court by a jury. The only bit I think is wrong is the media being allowed to report and publish before the verdict is given.

If a celeb is arrested for some terrible crime, the media will have a feeding frenzy doing their own trial by publicity, dragging up all sorts of facts, or kiss and tell stories. Then months later, when the official legal system deems their is enough evidence for a case to go to court, a jury now has to be picked that has been exposed to all this media hype. With the best will in the world, I can't imagine many people not already forming some kind of opinion from what they "think" they already know.

Otherwise you are publicly guilty until proven innocent, which an innocent verdict will mean little to the army of already brain washed tabloid readers.

Maybe the system is flawed by the fact a quality and expensive lawyer can make Jack the Ripper look like Mary Poppins, and it must be terrifying for a victim to have to stand up to a professional and harsh cross examination. But does tabloid, twitter and facebook commentary with continual 24 hour news really help the situation? The BBC have to show artists sketches during the court case, but everyone knows who the alleged person is because they have been all over the newspapers.

Or do we just go for it and have televised courtrooms. Then we can all stream it and watch unfold in real time. Oh gawd maybe Judge Judy is the future... 

It is quite frightening though, when you see how thin the veneer is of a "civilised society". I always think back to the Balkan conflict where neighbours lived next door to each other in harmony, then overnight reverted to ethnic groups and starting murdering each other when the official state ceased to exist. Some of the atrocities just didn't make any sense, and were carried out by young educated people. Look around the world today and there are countless examples.

Maybe trial by media isn't so bad in comparison 

This discussion reminds me of the recent case of a "personality" taking out an injunction against the UK media naming him.  The "incident" allegedly involving three people was widely reported in the USA and he was named.  Money talks so if the injunction is challenged again then he can just keep paying to defend his name.

I know who it is........