Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
TUESDAY 8 APRIL 2003
MR PETER
ROOK QC, MS
JAN BERRY,
MS CATHY
HALLORAN, MR
MICK AYERS
AND MS
JANET ARKINSTALL
100. You feel no unease about an unequal frame
for this.
(Ms Halloran) No, I do not.
101. Jan Berry, do you have a view?
(Ms Berry) I have no difficulty in retaining the anonymity
for victims, but I would have a difficulty in extending it to
offenders. I think at the moment it is another example of how
we are seeking to put victims at the centre of the criminal justice
system and it actually encourages them to come forward. I do not
necessarily think it is out of kilter where a person's anonymity,
if they are a complainant, is maintained.
102. Janet Arkinstall?
(Ms Arkinstall) I agree that we should maintain anonymity
for victims. It is incredibly important that that remains so that
people are encouraged to come forward when they allege they have
been raped. In relation to defendants, however, I think it does
create an unlevel playing field. I agree with your point that
there is a danger that people may not recognise people that have
perhaps made false reports in the past, although that is probably
not so much a problem, but, when you take into account the level
of public disquiet there is now about sex offenders, not just
in terms of rape but in terms of child sexual abuse, and the social
stigma and utter destruction that can happen to somebody's life
as a result of an allegation which may, indeed, turn out to be
a false allegation, I think there is actually a very good case
for saying there should be anonymity. Of course I also accept
Mr Rooks' point that if there is good cause—for example
it is suspected there are other victims of the person—by
all means in that case apply to the court to overturn it.
103. So the norm, in other words, you would
say should be anonymity.
(Ms Arkinstall) Yes, the default position—
104. And apply against that course.
(Ms Arkinstall) Absolutely.
Mr Clappison
105. Could I ask, Cathy—and I agree with
the point you make about anonymity for victims, which I think
it is terribly important—your reasons for being opposed
to granting anonymity to defendants. I am not that familiar with
the example which you quoted. It was a disc jockey you referred
to.
(Ms Halloran) Yes, that is right.
106. Was it the case in that case that other
women came forward and he was tried for a number of rapes together
or they came forward subsequently, after he had been convicted
of one rape?
(Ms Halloran) My understanding is that other women
came forward—
107. As soon as he was mentioned in connection
with one case?
(Ms Halloran) Yes.
108. Because, in a case like that, if he had
been convicted of the first rape and his name had then been publicised,
there would be nothing to stop the women coming forward at that
stage and him being put on trial again for a number of rapes and
possibly receiving a much more serious sentence.
(Ms Halloran) No, that is right.
109. Inevitably receiving a much more serious
sentence. Is that your only reason for opposing anonymity of defendants?
Because you would accept it is going to cause massive problems
to somebody's reputation who is found to be innocent of rape.
He is going to have a massive problem with his reputation, even
though he has been found not guilty.
(Ms Halloran) I would say that those who have been
accused of rape should not have anonymity. There should be no
exceptions. It is not the worst crime that people are accused
of. People accused of murder do not get anonymity. It would be
my argument that there should be no exception simply because the
crime is rape. And, yes, it does attract other women who have
been raped by a serial rapist, and that is very important.
Chairman
110. Mr Rook, did you want to come back on that?
(Mr Rook) I think I am only going to be echoing earlier
sentiments. I want to make it quite clear that we are totally
in favour of retaining anonymity of complainants. What we are
asking for is parity.
111. Could I just put another possibility to
you: anonymity for the defendant between the moment of arrest
and charge. A senior police officer wrote to me the other day
saying that the tabloid press seem increasingly unable to distinguish
between someone just picked up for an interview who is liable
to be released after a few hours and someone who is charged. What
do you think about that?
(Mr Rook) I would be very concerned that there should
be any loophole that might lead to an abuse and flouting the intention
of the anonymity provision if it were brought in.
112. Yes, but, assuming it is not brought in
and one went for this lesser option, as it were, and at least
said you cannot be named until you have been charged. At the moment,
am I right in thinking, you can be named from the moment you are
taken out of pantomime where you may be appearing?
(Mr Rook) Yes. Of course I would be in favour of the
lesser option compared to nothing.
113. That is a realistic possibility, is it?
(Mr Rook) It helps, but, frankly, it does not deal
with the major problem. How many cases are charged and there is
not a successful prosecution? An enormous number. So it would
not really be catering for the major part of the problem.
(Ms Berry) I am not quite sure I follow the last part
of that because one of the reasons for the legislation change
is to try to increase the number of successful prosecutions. I
think some of the clarification in the law will assist with that.
I still am not convinced that a person who is suspected of committing
a serious sexual offence should be treated in any other way to
the way in which a person who is convicted of a serious assault,
a murder or anything else is treated. I understand there will
always be people who will think there is no smoke without fire,
but I just do not see the reason why they should be treated differently.
114. I think it arose, as far as this Committee
is concerned, in relation to allegations of historic child abuse,
where you were dealing with alleged offences that may have taken
place 30, 40, 50 years ago, where you had the word of only one
witness against another or perhaps two or three witnesses against
another, where no records existed, where no forensic evidence
existed, and, in some cases, where the physical buildings in which
the offences are alleged to have occurred no longer existed. There
was an extremely large number of these cases which collapsed long
before they reached the doors of the court and lives were being
ruined in the process. Because child abuse actually is an offence
which carries a greater stigma than almost anything else. What
do you say about that?
(Ms Berry) With regard to anonymity?
115. Yes. Somebody says—and it is sometimes
a crowd of people who are in prison together—that they were
allegedly abused by someone who worked in a care home they all
attended 30 years previously. That is a thinner argument than
the one we were just having, about if you are charged with a rape
that took place more or less contemporaneously, is it not?
(Ms Berry) Yes, I would grant you that. I am not quite
sure how you could write the differences there into legislation.
But I would grant you that there are some extremely complex and
complicated investigations before they get anywhere near CPS,
let alone the court, and a lot of that is being rehearsed in public,
through the media, before the full investigation has been completed,
and I am not sure that does justice any long-term good.
116. Let me take some more soundings. Cathy
Halloran.
(Ms Halloran) Your point, I think we could possibly
agree with that, that a defendant or an accused has some sort
of anonymity (that is, it is not splashed around in the press)
until perhaps there is sufficient evidence to charge him. That
would probably be a compromise, a reasonable compromise that we
could accept.
Miss Widdecombe
117. I am still trying to get an answer to the
very simple question of the actual demerit that there is of granting
anonymity to defendants. One argument that has been put is that
you do not grant anonymity to defendants in any other case. No,
but you do not grant anonymity to their accusers either. I am
trying to work towards a level playing field. What is the demerit,
the risk, the disagreeable factor of not naming a defendant until
proved guilty?
(Ms Berry) I think some of the cases which Cathy has
already spoken about—
118. To which Mr Clappison has put a solution.
(Ms Berry) I think the point with regard to other
people then coming forward—
119. Mr Clappison produced a solution to that,
that if the man was proved guilty other people then could come
forward.
(Ms Berry) He would be charged further along down
the line.
Mr Cameron: If he is proved innocent—
Miss Widdecombe: If he is proved innocent,
he is not named.
Mr Cameron: —other people might
not be able to come forward because they have never heard about
it.
| 
