JK2006 wrote:
www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/03/24/stephen-fr...or-anonymity-reform/

I've got a comment.....'about time'

And at no little thanks to your hard work on this issue Doctor King....not that he ever asked you about it of course.

it's only fair.

I think Sir Cliff Richard was a step too far. He is very loved person.

I've met Cliff a few times (he wouldn't remember me from Adam) and I just really like him.
I can imagine this entire episode has been unbelievably distressing for him.

I would think his Christianity was a great support but probably made him question his beliefs.

I must find it..a QC who has listed the really scary list of rights that have disappeared because of the sex abuse accusations.

It should frighten everyone.

And fuck you MWT..you have been an integral part and KARMA is coming your way.

I don't support anonymity for defendants in so-called sexual offence prosecutions. If defendants were kept anonymous and held in prison on remand and thereafter on conviction, that feels perilously close to secret trials and secret disappearances, especially when accusers and possibly other witnesses are also anonymous. It makes me very, very uneasy.

The administration of justice is supposed to be public, so society can have confidence in the decisions reached on its behalf. I think defendants AND accusers should have no anonymity. A litmus test for the genuineness of an accusation is whether the complainant is prepared to stand by the allegation publicly, and have it scrutinised. This includes scrutiny of the provenance of the complaint, rather than just the performance-ready final version: the roles of people like Mark Williams Thomas and Max Clifford, discussions in online forums, therapy sessions, text messages etc etc.

Over recent years, there have been consistent attempts to reduce defendants' ability to use evidence to defend themselves. The latest was an article (linked to by hedda, I think) about excluding evidence in rape trials of women sending text or other messages indicating their desire for sex. The strategy seems to be to make the story told by the woman the only allowable evidence, accompanied by widespread propaganda that women never lie, false allegations are rare, #believeallwomennomatterwhat. The presumption of innocence is under severe attack.

A very good example, which supports what I say, is the prosecution of Ched Evans. It was only when the purported victim's name was illegally made public that a witness came forward to confirm that the complainant did indeed behave as described during consensual sex, just as Ched Evans had said all along. The rationale for publishing defendants' names is often given as encouraging other victims to come forward. However, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine an accuser's name being published and people coming forward with accounts of being spuriously accused in similar manner by that person in the past. Let's have equality of arms then, and have the whole thing open to public scrutiny. The end result is to determine who actually has done what is alleged, who hasn't, and who might be chancing their arm with a pack of lies for compo money, or to wriggle out of their own latest criminal charge.

I have some sympathy for Randall's view, not least because I have lived in a country where trials are often conducted behind closed doors, and in which people often disappear for long periods without any obvious legal justification.

I certainly don't agree with the police's trawling for accusations, and would be generally supportive of attempts to put an end to it, but further anonymity might not be the answer.

This predicament strikes me as being similar to something which came up in relation to the disclosure crisis. It seems pretty common now for someone accused of a crime (certain kinds of crime, at least) to have computers, phones, etc removed by the poilce. No doubt, this is likely to be extremely inconvenient, and pretty uncomfortable, for the accused. But, as exculpatory information has, in some cases, turned up on elecronic devices belong to the accuser, it might be tempting to require that the police take devices belonging to both parties. This would mean, in effect, that anyone who wishes to report a crime must turn in all their electronic devices in order to have a chance of receiving justice.

Is there a danger that those who would appeal for greater fairness – for justice – end up agitating on behalf of authoritarians?

The problem is best tackled earlier before it reaches this stage well described here, of dilemma and impasse.

Misa wrote:
... as exculpatory information has, in some cases, turned up on elecronic devices belong to the accuser, it might be tempting to require that the police take devices belonging to both parties. This would mean, in effect, that anyone who wishes to report a crime must turn in all their electronic devices in order to have a chance of receiving justice.

Is there a danger that those who would appeal for greater fairness – for justice – end up agitating on behalf of authoritarians?

Ah... very good point.

The quest for truth, leaving no stone unturned, could be taken as carte blanche for pervasive surveillance and unlimited powers of search and seizure.


The requirement for there to be reasonable grounds for invading someone's privacy and taking their stuff is a pretty good check on the risk. But of course it can't quite cover every scenario.