Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-207)
TUESDAY 29 APRIL 2003
HILARY BENN
MP, MS MICHELLE
DYSON, MS
ANN COLLIER
AND MR
DAVID FORD
200. If the argument is that someone should
to be named, recognising of course that false allegations have
previously been made in rape cases and no-one disputes that that
can and does happen—if someone is not to be named but is
charged with rape, surely that could be an argument in other cases
where rape is not the charge? Therefore, there would undoubtedly
be a distinction. Would that be desirable?
(Hilary Benn) I am not quite clear.
201. If someone was charged with other offences
and named where there is no controversy about that person being
named, why should it be different in rape cases?
(Hilary Benn) That indeed is one of the considerations
that would need to be taken into account were any change to be
made. The argument is advanced that there is something particularly
damning about being charged with a sexual offence, or being charged
with rape, that does not apply (so it is argued) in relation to
other cases; although I gave the list of examples that I did at
the beginning, theft, shoplifting, fraud, murder and manslaughter.
202. Murder is the most serious offence of the
law. Some people are acquitted but why should they be named in
the first place? I do not understand myself why there should be
a distinction between those who are charged with rape and those
charged with any other offence?
(Hilary Benn) That is indeed the argument made by
those who say that, since the basis upon which the Criminal Justice
System is openness, we should all see what people have been charged
with, and if you are acquitted then you leave the court without
a stain in your character—although, inevitably, if you have
been charged with an offence and been acquitted, depending upon
people's perceptions, it may leave a mark. It is a matter of perception,
depending on the position that somebody holds or how they regard
themselves, they may regard if they have a particular position
of trust that being falsely charged with fraud or theft is equally
damaging. We cannot get into the position, in applying that argument,
where one would then say it is anonymity right across the board,
because the Criminal Justice System cannot work on that basis.
It is this balance we are weighing here in trying to assess the
argument that was put by Miss Widdecombe for going back to where
we were before the law was changed. For the reasons I have tried
to outline, the Government is not currently persuaded we should
make a change. I hope you have understood from what I have said
that I understand an argument is made which is specific to these
kinds of cases for reasons perhaps we understand instinctively,
even if we find it rather hard to articulate.
Chairman
203. There are several categories, are there
not? One is where an allegation of rape has been made, and that
is what Miss Widdecombe explored with you. Another is this growing
habit in the tabloids of naming people as soon as the police knock
on their door. Miss Widdecombe explored that with you. The third
one, and this is really where it has arisen as far as this Committee
is concerned, is looking at historic allegations of child abuse
where you are talking, in many cases, about offences which are
alleged to have taken place 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We are
talking about people who have led otherwise blameless lives, who
may be long-retired in some cases or, in other cases, may still
be working in child care professions. We are talking about cases
where very few ever resulted in conviction, and where merely the
allegation can be ruinous, merely the suggestion can be ruinous.
If you think about it, it is the most damaging allegation you
can make against anybody, to abuse children. It is that on which
I seek your view.
(Hilary Benn) I agree. You will have seen the response
which we have made to that report.
204. Indeed, and very disappointing it was too.
Although it had obviously been well thought through, it looked
to me as though the Minister himself, Lord Falconer, had written
most of it.
(Hilary Benn) As Chairman of the Committee you say
that the response was well thought through, and who am I to add
to it!
205. I suspect that this is a discussion we
need to have with Lord Falconer.
(Hilary Benn) As you will have seen in that report,
we set out the argument but, in saying that we remain open to
the case made (and that is genuinely made and genuinely said),
it does acknowledge there is an argument.
206. What I thought the response entirely failed
to grasp was that there is a massive discontinuance rate in these
cases, unlike all other categories of cases. Overwhelmingly these
cases do not result in convictions. Most do not result in charges,
but where they do result in charges most of the charges collapse
before the case reaches court or shortly thereafter. That is what
puts them in an entirely different category; that plus the fact
they may have occurred 10, 20 or 30 years previously. That I thought
was the point which the response (which was otherwise very well
thought through) failed to address.
(Hilary Benn) There is also the argument in relation
to these cases which I gave to Miss Widdecombe in answer to her
original question, namely other people may come forward, although
I recognise the particular circumstances surrounding the way in
which people come forward.
207. Too many people come forward as far as
one can tell.
(Hilary Benn) I appreciate that.
Chairman: Thank you. I think we have
dealt with that. In which case, that is the end of business, Minister.
Thank you very much Ms Dyson, Ms Collier, Mr Ford and Minister
for coming.
|
