| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: The law as it stands offers anonymity for complainants in sexual offences, but it offers no specific
protection for adult defendants. Anonymity for defendants in rape cases was originally introduced in 1976--by a Labour Government, as it happens--and was repealed in 1988--by a Conservative Government, as it happens--following a recommendation by the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view that people accused of rape should not be singled out for special protection while other defendants could be identified. The Government in 1988 agreed. They were not convinced that rape defendants should be treated differently from defendants against whom a different but equally serious offence is alleged. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 therefore repealed the relevant measure.
I listened with interest to the arguments advancedby the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Greenway). They said that rape carries a special stigma, but people charged with an offence of dishonesty at work or in connection with their business, for example, and who are subsequently acquitted would say that that charge carried both a stigma and a consequence that could threaten their livelihood.
Balancing stigma and post-acquittal consequences involves arguments that are by no means clear-cut. Should people charged with an offence of dishonesty in connection with their business also have protection? The consequences could be just as severe, and the stigma just as great. If they are not to have such protection, why not? Those who propose a return to the law as it was before 1988 must have a convincing response to that dilemma. I am not entirely certain that that has been demonstrated by those who have argued this evening that the 1988 repeal should at least be explored.
Mr. Beith:
I remind the Minister that rape differs from other offences in that, in rape cases, anonymity is given to the complainant, which increases the possibility of a false and malicious allegation. The innocent defendant in such a case will ask how it can be right that the person making the allegation can have anonymity, whereas the defendant cannot. In that sense, rape is different from other offences.
Also, I meant to point out that the new clause would allow the court to break anonymity where the interests of justice required it.
Mr. Boateng:
I shall come in due course to the powers that the court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, already has in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman maintains that one anonymity should be balanced with another, but the contrary argument has been aired in debates throughout the afternoon, and it is that the public have a right, and an interest, in knowing what goes on in court. That argument must be addressed in determining where the balance of public interest lies.
We are satisfied that the present law strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice, in which the public has the wider interest, and the very important need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to report such crimes. We are not convinced that there is a special case for infringing the principle of open justice regarding defendants in sexual offences cases.
I have nothing but sympathy for the relatives of those in the cases offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale who were driven to suicide by their sense of shame and stigma at the allegations to which they were subject. There is genuine concern that defendants will be deeply distressed by being publicly named in connection with a sexual offence. Even if subsequently found not guilty, people may suffer great distress because of publicity given to their case.
Sexual offences cases are particularly heinous, and proceedings inevitably attract much public interest. However, the same can be said of other serious crimes, such as murder, in which defendants may be acquitted. Allegations of indecent assault or gross indecency can carry enormous stigma. Do those who make the case for change suggest that defendants accused of those offences ought to be protected by the cloak of anonymity?
Though the suggestion is well intentioned, to offer anonymity to defendants in sex cases would encourage others facing serious charges to argue--with some legitimacy--that they face embarrassment and distress and should be protected from press and public attention. We must ensure equality of treatment among defendants.
New clause 2 refers to a person neither accused nor suspected of having committed an offence. After acquittal, a person is neither accused nor suspected, and the new clause would not achieve what the hon. Member for Ryedale wants. We are not satisfied that the reform is justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the sex offences review might deal with the point, but it falls outside the review's terms of reference, which are to consider the law, not procedural or evidential issues.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. If there is a need to avoid publicity, the court has the power to act to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to proceedings. The court may order postponement of publication of any report of proceedings for whatever period it considers necessary. In addition, where a court decides to withhold a name from the public during a trial, it has the power to prohibit publication entirely.
The courts, mindful of the need to preserve the principle of open justice, have held that that power should not be used merely for the comfort or feelings of the defendant or to enable defendants to avoid unwanted publicity. The powers should be used only in limited circumstances, such as protecting the identities of the young, or in cases in which witnesses might later be exposed to violence or blackmail, or where national security might be prejudiced. The Government agree with that approach.
We have been asked why we should protect only victims. Anonymity for complainants in sex offence cases is designed not only to protect them from hurtful publicity
for their sake alone, but to encourage other victims of sexual assault to report the offence and to co-operate with the prosecution. Those arguments do not apply to the accused. Throughout our deliberations in Committee, it was pointed out--not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)--that the current rate of attrition is such that nothing must be done to weaken in any way the capacity and confidence of a complainant to come forward and make her allegation; it is normally "her", but it could equally be "him" in relevant cases. The point was also made by other hon. Friends outside the Committee and in the considerable and weighty representations that I received. The point has been made time and again. The House must confront what the attrition rate in rape cases tells us; the proportion of rape cases recorded by the police and resulting in a conviction fell from 24 per cent. in 1985 to 9 per cent. in 1997. That is a matter of the gravest concern.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire):
Is not the lack of balance in the anonymity provisions part of the problem? Since anonymity for the defendant was scrapped, the suggestion has been lurking in the courtroom, in almost every rape case, that a false allegation may have been made under the cloak of anonymity. A man's life may be ruined because of that anonymity. If both parties have anonymity, that suggestion cannot lurk in the background at court. I suggest that that would make a difference.
Mr. Boateng:
We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to make it crystal clear why it is so important that the special position of the complainant should be recognised in law. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, if the complainant is in the same position as the defendant, that does not hold up the complainant's special position as deserving the special measure that the complainant should not be subjected to publicity.
Mr. Heald:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng:
I am not able to give way; the House wants to proceed. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
I have listened carefully to the arguments, but, for the reason that I have just given, we are not able to accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will not press it to a vote.
Mr. Greenway:
The Minister's response was predictable. In fairness to him, I do not mean that as a criticism. As the right hon. Member for Berwick- upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, whenever the matter has been raised in recent years, Ministers--in Labour or Conservative Governments--have given the same response. However, there is more to the matter than the Minister accepts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |