Pressing charges

Anastasia De Waal, 27 July 2010

The Coalition has dropped plans to grant anonymity to men accused of rape, following protest from female MPs and rape victim groups, writes Meike Beckford.

The announcement by justice minister Crispin Blunt comes after the surprise inclusion of the policy in the coalition’s ‘Programme for Government,’ which, although it has been Liberal Democrat policy since 2006, was not included in either party’s manifesto.

Defenders of the policy argue that in the case of rape anonymity is necessary because of the damage caused by false accusations.  It is certainly true that a false accusation splashed across the front pages of the national newspapers can have devastating consequences for the individual and their family.  Universal condemnation, social exclusion and even attempts of vigilante “justice” can make life very difficult for all involved.

Opponents to the proposal, however, have highlighted the contradiction involved in singling out rape defendants. Surely, being accused of murder, sexual assault, drug trafficking, or any number of other serious crimes can have an equally damaging effect.  Singling out rape in this way is seen by many as tantamount to accusing rape victims of false accusation, thereby discouraging other women from coming forward.  If the Coalition’s concern about the effects of false accusations is so great, surely a more comprehensive approach would have been appropriate?

Furthermore, despite ostensibly giving in to the outcry from MPs, the government is still sticking to the idea in principle: contemplating a move to a less formal approach by strengthening recommendations to the press in the Editors’ Code of Practice.  This would ‘encourage’ journalists to self-censure their work by not naming defendants until prosecuted. A move which arguably is a direct attack on the freedom of the press – as well as getting anonymity for rape suspects in through the back door.  The fact that this announcement has been made before the publishing of their report suggests some nervousness regarding the robustness of their arguments.

The question is: can it ever be right for the government to put pressure on the media to ‘edit’ the news?  The extent to which this already happens is probably far greater than most of us realise, but it is for exactly that reason that we must be vigilant against any further attempts to influence such an integral part of freedom of speech and therefore democracy.