Conclusions and recommendations
Anonymity before charge
1. Newspapers
and the media are prohibited from revealing the name of a person
who is the victim of an alleged sexual offence. We recommend that
the same right to anonymity should also apply to the person accused
of the crime, unless and until they are charged with an offence.
(Paragraph 8)
2. The anonymity of
the person making the complaint currently lasts for their lifetime.
We do not wish to see that changed. (Paragraph 9)
3. The police should
not release information on a suspect to the media in an informal,
unattributed way. If the police do release the name of a suspect
it has to be limited to exceptional cases, such as for reasons
of public safety. (Paragraph 14)
4. It is in the interests
of the police to demonstrate, post-Leveson, that there is zero
tolerance for informal leaks to the press. Police forces need
to monitor and publish the number of instances where the identity
of a suspect in their area has found its way into the public domain
without an attributed source. (Paragraph 15)
Introducing a time limit on bail
5. We
agree that an initial time limit for bail should be introduced.
This would not be an absolute time limit, no one would be able
to be released because they could not be charged in time. The
time limit would require the police to explain the reasons for
the investigation taking how long it was taking. It would reduce
uncertainty for those involved, and encourage the police to carry
out investigations in a timely fashion. (Paragraph 17)
6. We recommend that
there should be a time limit on bail and agree with the proposal
for an initial time limit of 28 days. (Paragraph 19)
7. Any application
for an extension to pre-charge bail on exceptional grounds should
be made to the magistrates' courts. (Paragraph 21)
8. The review should
not become a rubber stamping exercise, the onus should be on the
police to persuade the court that a further period of bail is
necessary and proportionate. We recommend the decision to re-bail
at three months should be on application to a magistrates' court.
In the small proportion of cases where the police seek to extend
pre-charge bail beyond six months, the application for re-bail
should be to the Crown Court. (Paragraph 26)
9. It is important
that the review process enables the bail subject to challenge
the proposal for further bail, and to receive information as to
progress in the investigation against them. (Paragraph 27)
No further action
10. The
proposals in the Home Office consultation should improve the amount
of information given to a suspect at each review stage. Even so,
we find it difficult to understand why someone would be kept on
bail for several months and then be told that there would be no
further action, without any more information. (Paragraph 29)
11. We recommend that,
where a person has been on bail for longer than six months, and
where the final decision is to take no further action, the CPS
should write to the individual explaining the decision. The CPS
said that they write to the complainant to give an explanation
when a case is not proceeded with. In Mr Gambaccini's case
there was a decision for No Further Action. Mr Gambaccini told
the Committee that the case against him was fictitious. We believe
it is unfair to write to the complainant and not to the person
who had been complained against. This leaves someone like Mr Gambaccini
in limbo without anyone taking responsibility for his twelve months
of "trauma". (Paragraph 33)
12. We recommend that
the CPS write and issue a formal apology to Paul Gambaccini with
an explanation as to why this case took so long. (Paragraph 34)
13. The Committee
has not considered the situation of those who have not been arrested
or bailed but have found themselves in the eye of a media storm
as a result of an investigation entering the public domain. We
believe in the principle of fairness and timeliness which we have
elucidated in the cases of constant bail renewals. The police
and the CPS should be as transparent as possible regarding the
progress of investigations as they operationally can be, to avoid
the situation where these individuals are subject to the "fly
paper" tactic described by Mr Gambaccini. (Paragraph 35)
| 
